On Jan 12, 10:40 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't care which of the many closure proposals is adapted. As long
> as one is.
This seemed to be Dick's point (well, part of it, along with the idea
of shortening release cycles so that changes don't have the angst of
"if we don't get it in now, we have to wait three more years"). But I
think pining for the closures supporters to pull behind one proposal
or another ignores the political realities of what's going on. The
reason there's a stalemate is that the vocal part of the Java
community is roughly split into thirds, if what I'm seeing from polls
and forums is any indication:
* one third want BGGA
* one third want a closure proposal other than BGGA (e.g., FCM or
CICE)
* one third don't want Java closures at all
Clearly, the third camp won't ally itself with either of the first
two, and among the two closure camps, BGGA doesn't seem strong enough
to force the issue over the objections of 2/3 of the Java community
(the FCM/CICE camp plus the "no closures" camp). Many of the FCM/CICE
supporters seem unwilling to switch to BGGA, preferring no closures to
a proposal they dislike.
None of the factions represents even a majority, nor does there appear
any prospect for two of the factions to unite and trump the third,
unless you'd care to argue that the "no BGGA" and "no closures" camps
have inadvertently collaborated and won for now by keeping the lead
proposal, BGGA, out of Java 7.
--Chris
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
