A pity it's presented as yet again the deliver-later-but-better routine. At the third time, the credibility of such a statement is a bit low really...
Not everybody in here is up to par to fix bugs in a JDK. (I'm one of those). But I think there are a lot of other valid ways to contribute. I for one log bugs on the products and libraries I use daily. Very occasionally I can fix code. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 23:38 -0700, Vince O'Sullivan wrote: > > And don't forget 4. By the time they had delivered Java 6, it was such a > > mess internally that Sun were incapable of delivering Java 7 before they > > went bust and Oracle had to pick up the pieces. And, internally, it's > > still such a mess that getting Java 8 out is still a major uphill battle. > > Currently the sole motivation for Java 8 is lambdas. Currently the > lambdas stuff is not integrated into the OpenJDK codebase. OpenJDK is > the reference implementation and represents the current state. Java 8 is > thus not in a fit state to release and so delay is effectively > mandatory. > > Java 8 will still be good when it arrives, but possible redundant given > Groovy and Scala are already at where Java is trying to get. > > > On Saturday, 20 April 2013 01:04:29 UTC+1, JessHolle wrote: > > > > > > I think Oracle had initially promoted the notion that they had the > > > resources, discipline, and release management skill to get Java > releases > > > out on predictable basis. > > > > > > It was a nice notion. Certainly they were able to do better than Sun > > > while Sun was broke. > > > > > > Now, however, we're seeing the lie put to that notion. Either: > > > > > > 1. Oracle's not willing to put enough of their resources in, > > > 2. Oracle doesn't have enough bodies with the depth of JVM knowledge > > > necessary (and one can't develop such experience overnight), or > > > 3. More bodies won't help -- period. > > > > > > I'd guess it's somewhere between 2 and 3 (though 2 often means #1 > occurred > > > some time back when things were looking rosier). > > > > > > -- > > > Jess Holle > > Why all the emphasis on this being Oracle's fault? Oracle do not own the > OpenJDK, it is a FOSS project. Anyone can get involved. Lots of > individuals, user groups and companies are getting involved via the > AdoptOpenJDK and AdoptAJSR activities. Yes Oracle have a big role, but > so do IBM. Isn't the lack of resource as much IBM's fault as it is > Oracle's? > > Perhaps everyone on this email list should fix a bug rather than email > the list? > > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
