Ok, so let's take these points one at a time:* Reduce build matrix, save energySo, less builds which is good but pretty minimal value. * Attract devsAbsolutely not. If you want to attract devs, switch to a language that is actually growing (no I'm advocating for this). That isn't Java. If anything, this will lose you devs. The company I work for will be leaving Maven if you stop supporting Java8. That's 300 users you lose right there. That's just 1 company. You will lose users in droves if you stop Java8 support. Many companies don't have/put enough resources into this type of upgrade. Its hard to justify to the business and it makes lots of work for devs (expensive). If it is cheaper to switch build systems that to upgrade the JVM, that's exactly what folks will do. My company certainly will (not my decision so don't try to convince me, I'm not the one you have to convince).
* CDS for non-OpenJ9-usersI'm not sure this is something that is really taken advantage of by Maven. Perhaps I am wrong. * Better clarity of code (yes, I mean that)That you say that you actually mean this says it all. Clearly this is something that isn't agreed upon universally. Your personal taste shouldn't decide the future of a project used by so many others. * No additional work (we don't need to migrate, just use the features when modifying a line for a bug/feature anyway)This is simply not true. There have been comments by devs on this very list, in this very discussion that disprove this point. It isn't OK to just ignore their input because you really want to use lambdas. * We leave no one behind b/c of Maven 3.8/3.9, thus no drawbacks.You have that backwards. If you leave Java8, you leave behind everyone who can't upgrade their source base. It seems to me that the size of the group of Java8 folks you will leave behind is quite large. So your argument about no drawbacks isn't credible. There are no drawbacks for you, that isn't the same as there being no drawbacks for the entire user base. * By the time Maven 4 final is out, your views might have changed!I write most of my code in Scala so I doubt it seriously. Your points are not nearly as strong as you imply with your tone. Some of them indicate a lack of understanding of some more advanced parts of FP which is understandable for Java devs but doesn't make your points correct. And your analysis of the impact on the userbase is just plain wrong. If you want people to bomb this list with complains, drop Java 8 support and enjoy the rage postings you get from 100s to 1000s of devs who work for companies and projects that don't have to resources to upgrade. Hunter PS Lambdas are only useful if there is function composition and currying. Java lacks both. So the debate over lambdas is pretty amusing to me. It is just syntactic sugar. It doesn't actually give you the ability to do other things like in Scala or Kotlin. So I don't really understand why you want to use them so much. Are for loops really that hard to write? I mean there is already so much ceremony in Java that saving 3 or 4 keystrokes per loop doesn't really make any difference. On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:52:16 AM PDT, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> wrote: Seems people missed this (somewhat related) thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/kpsrb28nst84vtohwngy3140g1r0ydd4 Thanks On Mon, Jun 5, 2023, 20:40 Hunter C Payne <hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, Karl, I'm not sure I agree you have "stated a benefit" so far. > There have been plenty of hand-wavy arguments but nothing really solid. > That's why you are getting so much push back. Point to a specific feature > you need or some other thing that would help the project in some > significant way. At the moment, the argument is basically, "its newer so > its better", I'm sorry but that simply is not true. Make a better case and > you will get less pushback. > Hunter > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 06:03:26 AM PDT, Karl Heinz Marbaise < > khmarba...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03.06.23 11:46, Hervé Boutemy wrote: > > +1 > > > > I really don't what benefit we get from going to Java 17 > > which was already part of the email: > > > > Based on the argument we don't need features of JDK17+ I see a number > > of things which could make our handling/maintenance easier for example > > using sealed classes to prevent exposing internal things to public which > > could be used etc. also some other small features (`var` for example; > > Text-Blocks in Tests etc) or using records in some situation (really > immutability).. > > > > > > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbaise > > > > > I perfectly see the impact we'll have on our users: for what benefit? > > > > notice that this will also impact all plugins: and given the few work > done on > > plugins to clearly show what plugin version remains compatible with a JDK > > release, I feel we're not taking the topic the right way > > > > Le vendredi 2 juin 2023, 01:50:53 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit : > >> I'm not sure I would worry too much about that David. I think most > devs > >> who want better syntax moved from Java sometime ago. They might still > be > >> on the JVM just not writing Java. Also, Maven is a mature project. I > >> don't think devs considering contributing to it are thinking about using > >> the latest and greatest version of Java. Compatibility is probably a > >> bigger concern for the user base. Just my opinion. > >> > >> Hunter > >> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 04:17:26 PM PDT, David Jencks > >> <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I wonder if having maven require java 8 syntax discourages any > potential > >> contributors who are used to coding using more recent developments. I > have > >> no idea how to tell, but maybe someone else does. > >> > >> David Jencks > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2023, at 3:02 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> my clear opinion is to go with most recent JDK LTS version for the > >>> release point of Maven 4.0.0 which I assume will be JDK 21... > >>> > >>> That means clear the build time requirement which is completely > >>> different from runtime of an application. > >>> > >>> > >>> Older JDK's are supported by some vendors by having particular special > >>> support which most of the time requires special contracts (means also > >>> paying money for it)..some of them offering builds without paying money > >>> yes.. > >>> > >>> Older runtime target are supported with different approaches like > >>> Toolchain or via `--release XX` which exists since JDK9+. > >>> > >>> > >>> Furthermore if someone is not capable of upgrading the build > environment > >>> to JDK9+ they can continue to use Maven 3.8.X or Maven 3.9.X... > >>> > >>> If it would be requirement to port things back to 3.8.X or 3.9.X it > >>> could be handled by someone who has the time etc. to do that ... if > not, > >>> those people might think of paying someone to do that work... > >>> > >>> > >>> The given argument about JPMS for migration causes issues is from my > >>> point of view false-positive because migration to newer JDK versions > >>> does not require JPMS usage... > >>> > >>> Even platforms like AWS support JDK17 in the meantime which is the > >>> runtime... > >>> > >>> > >>> Based on the maintenance part it would mean in consequence to downgrade > >>> to even JDK7... (or even lower) because you can get support for older > >>> JDK version in some ways... (JDK7 from azul for example) > >>> > >>> Kind regards > >>> Karl Heinz Marbaise > >>> > >>> [1] > https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/java-se-support-roadmap.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
