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 ]