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 > > > > >