Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making • Hacker News Board

Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#1

Post by pdeva1 » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making
blog.dripstat.com

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#2

Post by ante_annum » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:17 PM UTC

So the explanation is:

  Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire.
  It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and 
  start the path to righteousness

And what the author takes away is:

  This engineer hates the Unsafe class for no reason at all.

The reason the engineer hates it is that it's unsafe. Disagree with it, sure. But it's a reason, and it's a good reason (imho). I understand that it's commonly used by apps I use, but it's hard to keep reading after this kind of knee-jerk.

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#3

Post by snuxoll » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:19 PM UTC

ante_annum wrote: post #2

So the explanation is: Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and start the path to righteousness And what the author takes away is: This engineer hates the Unsafe class for no reason at all. The reason the engineer hates it is that it's unsafe. Disagree with it, sure. But it's a reason, and it's a good reason (imho). I un…

In addition, it's in the sun.misc package, if it's not in java.* or javax.* it is ripe for pruning, you'd think people would have learned by now to stop using internal classes since pretty much every JRE/JDK release known to mankind has changed them or removed them.

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#4

Post by carsongross » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

Once again, The Platonic Engineer gazes hatefully at the gronky, ugly and awkward things that make things work in real life, rub his hands together and says...

"Burn it to the ground."

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#5

Post by ihuman » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

What is "Unsafe?" Is it unsafe, as its name implies? If it is unsafe, why to so many programs use it?

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#6

Post by pron » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

Chill.

There is no disaster in the making. Oracle is very much aware of the issue, and is actually already taking the very same steps suggested by the author. It has assembled a public working group that is coming up with a spec for a public "Unsafe" API[1] (that is safer than Unsafe).

In the meantime, use of Unsafe in Java 9 will be possible with a command-line flag in order to allow the working group more time to create the new API and for Unsafe consumers to migrate, and of course to allow existing libraries to run on Java 9.

[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GDm_cAxYInmoHMor-AkStzWv...

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#7

Post by ZitchDog » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

Entire companies exist around functionality provided in Unsafe. I don't see this going well if they remove it without providing access to the functionality it gives.

Java has plenty of problems, but backward compatibility over the years has been simply amazing. This would chip away at one of the few legitimate reasons to use Java in 2015.

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#8

Post by razorsese » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

Literraly meme language

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#9

Post by taeric » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

ante_annum wrote: post #2

So the explanation is: Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and start the path to righteousness And what the author takes away is: This engineer hates the Unsafe class for no reason at all. The reason the engineer hates it is that it's unsafe. Disagree with it, sure. But it's a reason, and it's a good reason (imho). I un…

That is a pretty crappy explanation, on the engineer's side.

To be clear, any explanation that is not immediately followed with examples to how current valid uses of Unsafe can be accomplished without it, are simply witch hunts by an engineer that hasn't had to meet the same requirements.

Re: Removal of Unsafe in Java 9 – A disaster in the making

#10

Post by jevinskie » Mon, Jul 13, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

ante_annum wrote: post #2

So the explanation is: Let me be blunt -- sun.misc.Unsafe must die in a fire. It is -- wait for it -- Unsafe. It must go. Ignore any kind of theoretical rope and start the path to righteousness And what the author takes away is: This engineer hates the Unsafe class for no reason at all. The reason the engineer hates it is that it's unsafe. Disagree with it, sure. But it's a reason, and it's a good reason (imho). I un…

I think the author's point about being able to make safe Unsafe replacements and keeping Unsafe around (for the time being) to enable better compatibility was thoughtful.