Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by jsiepkes on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:42AM (#28525576)

Starting from 1.6 they only showed the minor version number. So 1.6 = Java 6, 1.8 = Java 8, etc.

I always assumed this was because .net (arguably it's main competitor) was churning fast through version numbers and they "wanted to keep up".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by nobleach on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @02:58PM (#28529313)

It was a very Sun-like thing to do. Sun dropped the 2. after their 2.6 release. Solaris 7 was the next release... then 8.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by shadycuz on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:54AM (#28525790)

Ahh so 17, is 1.17?

I swear I googled this like 2 months ago and the first 2 or 3 links weren't helpful so I gave up. Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by shawnz on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @11:21AM (#28526193)

Effectively yes, but the "1.x" format is deprecated since Java 9 and not used anymore, whereas versions 5 through 8 used both notations.

See https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-ele...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by oaiey on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @02:09PM (#28528484)

And now it is the other way around. C# burning through the versions to catch up the versions (and not so much the content).

PS: had to edit, was really just a note about the numbers not the content of the versions!!!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by DaiPlusPlus on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @02:32PM (#28528845)

C# has never had to play catch-up with Java, it's always been the other way around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by pulse7 on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @03:01PM (#28529354)

Ohhh.... C# was invented as a response to Java... So it had to play catch-up with Java - at it's inception...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by jsiepkes on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @03:35PM (#28529885)

Even worse: C# came as a response when Microsoft failed to apply their embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on Java like they did with Netscape[1].

In the end the case was settled out of court and MS agreed to pay more then 1 billion dollar to Sun. MS also agreed to license a whole slew of patents for use with .net.

[1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsof...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by x0n on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @02:30PM (#28528814)

Catch up to what? The JDK 17 JEP list reads like a list of things that were added to dotnet years ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by jsiepkes on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @03:23PM (#28529711)

Thats kind of a hyperbole.

.net didn't add support for macOS on ARM64 years ago. .net also didn't implement 2D rendering on macOS via Metal. etc. As a matter of fact .net didn't even support any other platform then Windows until recently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by metaltyphoon on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @02:14AM (#28535811)

Also hyperbole, dotnet supported other platforms years ago via mono.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by jsiepkes on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @10:20AM (#28539356)

I think I would be generous if I stated 10% of the .net applications ran on Mono instead of MS CLR without source modifications. I even doubt more then 60% of the .net applications ran on .net Core (needed for other platforms then Windows) without modifications.

Meaning .net has nowhere near the "write once, run anywhere" support Java has.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by oaiey on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @03:49PM (#28530081)

Just version numbers, not content :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by codetrotter on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:47AM (#28525670)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history

> J2SE 5.0

> […]

> The release on September 30, 2004 was originally numbered 1.5, which is still used as the internal version number. The number was changed to "better reflect the level of maturity, stability, scalability and security of the J2SE".

and

> This version introduced a new versioning system for the Java language, although the old versioning system continued to be used for developer libraries:

>> Both version numbers "1.5.0" and "5.0" are used to identify this release of the Java 2 Platform Standard Edition. Version "5.0" is the product version, while "1.5.0" is the developer version. The number "5.0" is used to better reflect the level of maturity, stability, scalability and security of the J2SE.

>> — Version 1.5.0 or 5.0?[32]

[32]: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/version-5....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by rickette on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:45AM (#28525629)

1.8 and 8 are the same thing. Java switched to full version numbers like 9, 10, 11, etc now 17 some time ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by deepsun on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:42AM (#28525578)

I wish they would name it 2021, 2022 etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by bcrosby95 on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:46AM (#28525648)

They have a 6 month release cadence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by codetrotter on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:48AM (#28525686)

2021.0, 2021.5, 2022.0, … :^)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java 17 / JDK 17: General Availability by hocuspocus on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:54AM (#28525784)

They tried for a short while (I think Java 10 was supposed to be 18.3) but stuck to incrementing major versions after all.

[ Parent | on HN ]