I know that my opinion is probably irrelevant to those guys, but I think that if they want to name the version that way, they should at least use four digit years. This would:
* Avoid some confusion from people asking "we had Java 9 and now Java 18, where are 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17?" * Show that we learned a lession from the nasty Y2K bug. Who knows if Java would still be around in 2100? Few to no people seriously think that it will, but many software solutions end living way longer than what it is antecipated and still getting updates and improvements for quite a long time. Victor Williams Stafusa da Silva 2017-11-02 12:56 GMT-02:00 Christian Lenz <[email protected]>: > As someone said, it would be great that NetBeans could be the first DIE to > Support Java 18.3, well, to late: https://blog.jetbrains.com/ > idea/2017/11/intellij-idea-2017-3-eap-brings-support-for- > local-variable-type-inference/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_ > medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jetbrains_intellijidea+% > 28JetBrains+IntelliJ+IDEA+Blog%29 > > I mean yeah not to late but there are already News for the next Version of > Java in the blog of IntelliJ. Only to let you know that fact. > > > Regards > > Chris > >
