Your inclination to ignore points of the debate doesn't do your own
arguments any justice.
Multiple times it's been explained that raising the required runtime JDK in
Maven 4 will not prevent you from
- building with a lower JDK (via toolchains)
- targeting a lower JDK (via the release property)
- building with Maven 3

This is the main point of the debate, not the language.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 21:42, Hunter C Payne
<hunterpayne2...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> * 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
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to