On Friday, December 9, 2016 5:06:14 PM EST Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> > > wrote: > > Java on Gentoo is really not bad, if you are familiar with Java at all. > > It's actually quite insane "if you're familiar with Java at all"...
I have been coding in Java since 1.3, going back to 2001 I think. > Building C and C++ from source is great. 51% of dev-java category is doing > pointless work. In what sense? What source/target are pre-compiled jars? That same thing could be said for perl, python, ruby, and likely others on Gentoo. However they tend to be the same, they have no source/target like Java. > 401 ebuilds only have IUSE="doc source" which can almost > always be fetched from Maven Central Fetched in another step, this allows it to exist locally. But many are moving to Gradle. Maven is a bit old school now, one step beyond ant. > , and 44 ebuilds have no USE flags at all. They may be upstream -bins, Sun had a fair amount with no source release. Could be the doc/source were omitted on accident or purpose. > That's just from simple grep results. Given the ugly majority there, I > don't doubt there's some silliness going on in the remaining 49%. Building > Java from source to get the exact same jar file every time on a million > machines when you could just fetch the upstream jar instead is plain stupid. Really is it the exact same jar? You know what changing source/target does right?. Which Gentoo does have some issues there, as it does not use older rt.jar when using targets < current JVM version. https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/bootclasspath_older_source Not all jars are the same, not all Java binaries are the same. Tossing a 1.7 jar into a 1.8 JVM does not really give you any 1.8 benefits. It will run as if it was 1.7 in a 1.8 JVM for example. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
