Jump to content

Talk:Java version history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.239.10.60 (talk) at 05:53, 8 February 2016 (→Java version numbering not uniform). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

alpha and beta releases?

I couldn't find any kind of supporting pages or articles to reference, but it might be worth it to add the old alpha and beta releases of Java to this page. I remember they were incompatible with each other, so on the old Gamelan site, you had to click on either alpha applets or beta applets depending on which version you could run. --Vollers 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versions paragraphs titles

The current "template" for Java versions has some shortcomings: it basically contains the "official" name of the release, then its date, finishing by "supported" or "unsupported" depending on the status of the release. The problem is that its a very long name, subject to errors when linking, and even the link will change over time (when the status goes from "supported" to "unsupported"). For example: "J2SE 1.4 (February 6, 2002) (Unsupported)".

The result is that when a specific release is referenced elsewhere in wikipedia, it usually reference the Java Platform, Standard Edition article, which I think is not the best to do, and even maybe is not really intended by those who made the link. Plus this pattern seems to be very specific to this article, for example it's much more simple in the .NET Framework, Microsoft Silverlight, Adobe Flex, etc... articles.

Hence my proposal: Why not simplify the titles, keeping only the first part, for example "J2SE 1.4" and not the current "J2SE 1.4 (February 6, 2002) (Unsupported)". The support status and the date of the release can very well be added at the beginning of each release paragraph. It would then be very simple to add a redirect to any of these paragraphs, and be sure that the link will never change. Hervegirod (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense for me. Nabbia (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, people seem to want to keep the version dates. As it will not change, I'm OK with that. However, I fixed the redirects to J2SE xx and Java xx, so please people: do not add the "supported" and "unsupported" tags back ;) Hervegirod (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20090510: Bad Grammar: "Some programs allow to convert"

Added by anon, 20090510: Bad grammer in sentence beginning: "Some programs allow to convert Java programs from one version of [...]". I don't know the precise, proper correction. (Thx for Wikipedia!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.133.160 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And you'll be taken more seriously about grammar problems when you spell "grammar" correctly. --Mwn3d (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OS X Java versions?

Since Apple distributes their own Java implementation, and the updates are NOT cumulative, it'd be very helpful to have an article of which Java versions were included in each OS X version and which updates are required to be downloaded and installed to bring it up to date.

jdk 1.0.2

Why is JDK 1.0.2 missing, it was the first stable version available for the public. I know, it is long ago, but still? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Java version numbering not uniform

Till Java 5, the versioning is Java 1.X. With Java 5, the article drops the "1.". Is this the real standard? If it is so, please add an information that the naming was changed with a reference. Sae1962 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, we should explain this in the article. Hervegirod (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the big number is the version of the Java language, but the number with "1." is the version of the JDK. The JDK is still on version 1 because it still has the same set of executables, and works in roughly the same way, despite big changes in to we've had Java version 2, version 5.0 and version 6; with corresonding JDK versions 1.4.2, 1.5.0, 1.6.0 and so on. I think Sun indicated when Java 5.0 was released, that the second number in the JDK version would from then on always correspond to the version number of the language; but with Oracle taking over, all bets are off (203.184.62.151 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)) gand lund shri krishan ki maa ka loda[reply]

Java 8 Release Schedule

"Java 8 is expected in Summer 2013". Please note that Summer is both at the beginning of the year (January, February) and at the end of the year (December). There is a big gap between these periods (11 months). Could we be a bit more accurate. Maybe "Java 8 is expected in the Summer of 2012/2013" or "Java 8 is expected in the Summer of 2013/2014". Or maybe, we should not use season names, as on the other side of a little imaginary line called the equator, the other HALF of the planet has seasons with the same name in very different times of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesselong (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Java 6 EOL

Oracle changes Date of EOL to Nov 2012. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html So the sentence "Java 6 has been discontinued as of may 7 2012" is not correct any more. See https://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/updated_java_6_eol_date

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.184.18 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Java 7 Undocumented compiler features?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_version_history&diff=509318650&oldid=508802874

As you can see, there was "The ability to cast from an Object type to a primitive type directly" edited in and back out. My problem here is: I can't find any documentation or JSR stating that this is true. BUT it seems to be true: 

java.util.ArrayList bla = new java.util.ArrayList();
bla.add(Integer.valueOf(1));
int id = (int)bla.get(0);
System.out.println(id);

Is invalid code in java 6 (error at line 3) and valid in 1.7, it even runs. Looking at the bytecode the compiler inserts an explicit cast to Integer. When you cast to float it casts to Float and so on.

Is it a compiler bug maybe? Eclipse JDT does the same! We need to find the JSR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.255.70 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, if Java starts to allow such errors, it'll become the same buggy crap as Javascript. That's totally the wrong direction, just imagine all the runtime errors this would create...Oracle, please don't smoke this great language out of our servers! --178.197.236.189 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 29, http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/ea/6u10/deploymentToolkit.jsp, is (effectively) broken (it redirects to a generic page). Other links starting with http://java.sun.com/ are probably broken as well. --Mortense (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GPU

"There are plans to add automatic parallelization using OpenCL" Those plans have been scrapped as Oracle are now targeting HSA for version 9. Meaning they will support AMD but not Nvidia as the latter are not implementing HSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.123.50 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention OpenJDK 6

Confusingly, OpenJDK 6 is still getting updates, unlike the Java 6 binaries from Oracle. It would probably be a good idea to talk about this. —SamB (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in sections titles

Please move the dates from the section titles to the body of each section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! BlitzGreg (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SE v EE versions

This article covers the Standard Edition (SE) versions, but doesn't mention or link to the Enterprise Edition (EE) versions as per Java EE version history. John a s (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java_version_history&oldid=703882252"