If I understand correctly it will by ready for production by 2013-03-18
Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
11–20 of 50 posts
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#12If I understand correctly it will by ready for production by 2013-03-18 http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones
This Page has more accurate dates:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#13Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#14If I understand correctly it will by ready for production by 2013-03-18 http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones
You mean 2014 March 18?. That is the General Availability date.
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
A language should have been an asynchronous library? How does that even make sense?
Look at the code, Java like, no? But a lot nicer.
I don't know if you're just being naïve or if you have absolutely no clue about language design.
In case it's the former, "a lot nicer" is subjective, so it carries no weight in the discussion.
If the latter... well, go read a few books on compiler design and language theory.
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#16HAHA, C# copied Java in many ways, now Java is following suit. Good for them.
Looking forward to this. I used to write C# code for quite some time before I started working with Java. And, I must say after using Linq extensively, it almost felt like a handicap to work without Lambda expressions in Java.
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the code, Java like, no? But a lot nicer.
So you want Oracle to include a "shared" and "auto" keywords and break millions of programs?
Yes, Yes I do.
And as for backward compatibility, they already did. I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe (), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity.
: The various xml parsers and other library thrash really do break backwards bytecode compatiblity.
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#18Looking forward to it! We've been experimenting with early builds and the improvements are enjoyable. My colleague's reference for developer-facing changes in Java 8: http://www.techempower.com/blog/2013/03/26/everything-about-...
Reading through the post, one of the link[1] says something along the line of "Java has 'multiple inheritance' from day 1". How is this the case?
[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2013-March...
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#19Still quite far behind what is provided by C# and Scala, among others. At least it's a step in the right direction. These are the first major language changes to Java in nearly a decade, say what you like about Oracle, but at least they have the funds to develop Java whereas Sun was running on empty.
Re: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you want Oracle to include a "shared" and "auto" keywords and break millions of programs?
Yes, Yes I do. And as for backward compatibility, they already did. I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe ( ), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity. : The various xml parsers and other library thrash really do break backwards bytecode compatiblity.
> I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe (), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity.
Proof?