The loss of Jigsaw is massive and significant. Having modules, especially versioned modules, is what will allow the language to evolve.
Sure, it would lead to smaller runtimes, but also to cleaning up classes where more than half the methods are deprecated. It would allow type signatures to be changed. It would allow Java to (finally!) drop some of the baggage that it's been carrying around since before V1.0 It also needs to be a compile-time solution, and not to carry some of the weight that exists in OSGi - Hotswapping of modules is not on the Agenda here. Maven comes closest, but Jigsaw needs to be fully integrated into the JVM, fully understood by tools and able to resolve and download modules at runtime. It needs to do all this without breaking backwards compatibility. Jigsaw was *the* defining feature of the v8 JVM. Whereas anyone who truly thinks that lambdas are sufficiently important is already using Scala, or Groovy, or JRuby, or Mirah, or Fantom, or... The reverse argument, however, isn't true. You can't claim that anyone who cared enough about modules would already be using Fantom, because Fantom's modules aren't applicable across any language on the JVM, and they don't extend into the Java standard library. My vote would be to postpone lambdas until 9, and focus on Jigsaw instead. Java developers are more than used to not getting lambdas, and there are already mature alternatives available for functional programming on the JVM (which are more powerful than the lambda specification). Jigsaw has no equivalent alternative. On 19 July 2012 14:51, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. A simple, unified, compile-time/runtime/language-level module > system is all I really want from Jigsaw. > > Modularizing the JVM and (most silly of all) integrating with > platform-specific deployment tools (e.g. rpm) are really uninteresting to > me. I can see how they're all good things for the long-term health and > expansion of Java, but those can all be Java 9 or 10 things. Simple, > integrated modularity is the important thing to get sooner. > > > On 7/19/2012 8:45 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > I'm flabbergasted that this entire thread is lamenting the fact that we > aren't getting 'smaller JREs' now for java 8. > > Like 95% of the rest of the world of java, my java apps tend to be long > running and tend to be on machines I control, i.e. make the JRE 2GB for all > I care, it just doesn't matter one iota. Bootup can take 10 seconds too, > still don't really care. > > But I'm REALLY disappointed (not annoyed; if this is the right call, > it's the right call. A rushed API is never a good idea): I wanted jigsaw > for the ability to modularize my projects, and make development simpler by > just being able to stick my dependencies in a file. A unification, of > sorts, between the maven idea (build-time dependency management) and the > OSGi idea (run-time dependency management). I'm probably expecting way more > of jigsaw than it really is, but you gotta start somewhere, and a > modularization system that is an intrinsic part of the language and which > is what the JVM itself is modularized on seems like a fantastic start. > > On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:49:51 PM UTC+2, Mwanji Ezana wrote: >> >> http://mreinhold.org/blog/**late-for-the-train<http://mreinhold.org/blog/late-for-the-train> >> >> I had just read an interesting practical intro to Jigsaw by Paul Sandoz, >> so I'm sad to see it go. >> >> Moandji >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
