You can see in this discussion group the tension between: "don't make changes" (Bob) and "lets keep advancing Java" (Reinier). I am in Reinier's camp, but think that both points of view can be satisfied with a source statement. If there is no source statement then the file compiles as it does now, but if the file has source "Java7"; at the start then you can use the new features and most importantly a file with source "Java7"; at the start does not have to be source compatible with current Java (though the two need to co-exist on the JVM - just like JavaFX and Java do today).
This way everyone gets what they want. -- Howard. On Sep 17, 2:52 am, Bob Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > There were a few proposals that didn't make it that > > nevertheless received some positive feedback and went through a bunch > > of iterations (case in point: Neal's exception handling proposal!), > > that were nevertheless not shortlisted. > > You keep pointing to Neal's proposal, but one example doesn't connote a > trend. Let Neal champion his own proposal. > > While having a preliminary process might save some people some time, it's > not something I'd spend time on. I doubt anyone else would either. Frankly, > I hope the Java programming language *doesn't* change much more. I certainly > don't want to do anything to encourage more change. In 5 years, Java will > look a lot like C++, and we'll look back and say that we should have just > stopped 5 years ago. > > Bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
