News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by laureny on Monday December 23, 2013 @09:00PM (#6957821)
A language should have been an asynchronous library? How does that even make sense?
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by puppetmaster3 on Monday December 23, 2013 @09:58PM (#6957992)
Look at the code, Java like, no? But a lot nicer.
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by aeonsky on Monday December 23, 2013 @11:19PM (#6958186)
So you want Oracle to include a "shared" and "auto" keywords and break millions of programs?
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by grogenaut on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @12:38AM (#6958392)
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 by laureny on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @01:32AM (#6958525)
> I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe (), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity.

Proof?

Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by mhixson on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @02:14AM (#6958593)
If by "syntax compatibility" he means code that compiles in one version does not compile is another, that's definitely true. Name collisions with the new default methods in Java 8 are one source. If your Comparator-implementing class has a method "void reverseOrder()", that will no longer compile.

Here's a couple of recent examples the Guava authors have fixed. Fortunately they were in internals and not their public API, so users won't care.

https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/detail?r=7d... https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/detail?r=25...

Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by laureny on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @10:17AM (#6959650)
This happens for all languages and is not usually considered as "a language breaking backward compatibility", it's purely a library concern.

What is meant by "breaking backward compatibility" is when the grammar is altered in a way that makes existing sources no longer compile.

Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by grogenaut on Friday December 27, 2013 @04:07PM (#6972615)
enum
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by laureny on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @12:16AM (#6958332)
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 by puppetmaster3 on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @07:50AM (#6959198)
Yes, insult away.

You do know D the language was written by compiler expert, right - if you had a point or just insult.

Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by aeonsky on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @08:46AM (#6959317)
If you mean the D language was designed by a compiler expert, then it is as irrelevant as a house designed by a plumber. I don't know, I heard talks by James Gosling and he is much of an expert as anybody.
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by laureny on Tuesday December 24, 2013 @10:18AM (#6959655)
I was not questioning Andrei's skills, only yours.
Re:Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Draft 1 by puppetmaster3 on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @09:57AM (#6963096)
I'd like to point out that you acting like a jerk does not make you look more competent.

Java has a reputation of a bad community, and you just underline it here.