Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Java Programming Sun Microsystems IT Technology

Java 1.5.0 Now Officially Java 5.0 534

Quantum Jim writes "In a move which out-does Netscape's one-version number skip and Winamp's two-numbers skip, Sun has announced that the upcoming Java2 release will be marketed as version 5.0, skipping three-and-a-half numbers. Can version 6.022E23 be far behind? Thanks to David Flanagan for the heads-up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Java 1.5.0 Now Officially Java 5.0

Comments Filter:
  • Whoa (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:29PM (#9608788) Journal
    Hmm... That must be some kind of record?

    Although Microsoft did go from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000, that wasn't really a version jump (Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5) but a change of branding.

    Anyone know even greater version inflations?
  • Good to know... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:29PM (#9608794)
    Good to know that Sun is hard at work, coming up with strange new ways to confuse the end-user.

    Seriously though -- I love Java, but Sun needs to pull its head out of its ass before C#, PHP, and Python relegate Java to the scrap heap.

  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:30PM (#9608803) Homepage Journal
    With how everyone has been treating them, versioning is pretty much worthless, beyond identifying what you have..

    None is consistent, there is no 'standard' and its ( as is apparent by the story, and many in the past ) all arbitrary...
  • Thank Godness (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:32PM (#9608809)
    Right now Sun markets Java as Java2, but all the developer's documentation refers to the internal version number 1.4 (soon to be 1.5). Hopefully they will grow a brain and drop this scheme and just stick to the one version from now on because it confuses everybody the first time they come accross it.
  • by YetAnotherAnonymousC ( 594097 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:33PM (#9608821)
    I'd settle for 3.0 if they had picked that. Java 1.2 would be 2.0 (inner classes, collections, other major additions).
  • it was confusing enough when java 1.2 was marketed as "java 2," and we subsequently saw java 2 1.3 and java 2 1.4. But java 2 5.0? That's just rediculous. :)
  • by supmylO ( 773375 ) <bjarosz&gmail,com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:33PM (#9608827)
    As long as you can differentiate between different versions I don't see what the problem is. It's not like they went backwards or anything.
  • by fastdecade ( 179638 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:34PM (#9608831)
    Anyone who says this is irrelevant, we should focus on the technology etc, has failed to understand that software is about more than technical details.

    Managers don't understand the details - they don't bother to learn that 5.0 is really 1.5, and they make decisions based on their high level views.

    Sun has hurt Java's name, and let its developers down, with this absurd naming move, a repeat of the shambolic schizophrenic 1.2/2.0 business years ago.

    So now we have Java 2 Version 5????? Employers will want to know why developers haven't done any version 3 and version 4. And it will certainly confuse the crap out of them.

    Java has a good name for professionalism, but whoever came up with this ought to hang their head in shame.
  • by Croaker ( 10633 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:38PM (#9608857)
    God, I hate marketing. Why do you have to have yet another number attached to a product? I could never figure what the hell Sun was talking about when they would go off on "Java 2", but then sprinkle in "1.4" or "1.5" when talking about the JDK. or JRE.

    Jesus. Just give me a version number so I can track what it's compatible with, and what features it has. If you're bumping up your version number for a product, bump them for all related ones as well, in the same increment. Don't make me try to figure out what version number of the language is supported by which version number of the developer's kit for god's sake. Is it so damn hard?

    I thought marketing was suppose to create clarity in the minds of the potential customer. Screwing around with numbering schemes isn't the way to do that. I don't care what your internal taxonomies are. Just label the thing, and stick with it.

    I also take it that Sun's marketing/engineering is stealing their "internal" project naming protocols from Apple?

  • by Bloomy ( 714535 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:38PM (#9608860)
    Sun kinda did that with Solaris. I was told Sun marketed Solaris 2.5 as Solaris 5 so that its version was higher than NT 4. Each 2.# release has just been called Solaris #. Though uname still reports the 2.# version.
  • by notsoclever ( 748131 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:39PM (#9608865) Journal
    Remember when they released Solaris 2.7 as Solaris 7 instead? Nothing new here.
  • by realdpk ( 116490 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:42PM (#9608890) Homepage Journal
    The operator should actually be 'or' in this case, if you're counting the numbers as features. IE something that would contain feature #3 would 11, and something that would contain feature #2 would be 10. 11 | 10 == 11
  • Java numbering... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kindaian ( 577374 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:52PM (#9608959) Homepage
    Why not calling it just Java 2004???

    After all, we are all talking about vintages aren't we?

    More seriously, Sun should just drop the Java 2/5 numbering and just use the year that is launched as the "brand"... and keep a "internal" version number for identification purposes...

    That would keep the market droids happy and the programmers would have both an inteligent numbering and a discreet numbering to work with...
  • by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:54PM (#9608979)
    What world do YOU live in? It sounds like a pretty nice place. Where I live, marketing is intended to confuse and bewilder the customer so that they pay for things that they neither want nor need.
  • java -version (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpn14tech ( 716482 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:58PM (#9608999)
    The question is what will java -version or System.getProperty("java.version") show. This could be a big deal for installers that expect a specific version format string. A similar case is in Windows 2000 the api version returns 5.0 and Windows XP returns 5.1
  • by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:09PM (#9609067)
    When Java SDK went from 1.1.x to 1.2.0 they decided that they had made lots of big changes (IIRC Swing and Collection.. possibly Inner classes *shrug*) so they called it Java 2.

    Then why not Java 2.0? Why Java 2 1.2? I ask because I've been confused by this before, though got it worked out.
  • by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:11PM (#9609085)
    No no... Java 5 is still Java2 5.0. From the website: "Sun Microsystems, Inc. ... today introduced Java 2 Platform Standard Edition (J2SE) 5.0"

    If anyone has contact with the people who came up with the Java versioning scheme, please ask them what they are smoking and where I can get some.
  • by the_soulman ( 465347 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:35PM (#9609228) Homepage
    MS Word for Windows has an interesting sequence of versions: 1, 2, 6, 95, 97, 2000. The numerological significance of this is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • by tweakt ( 325224 ) * on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:36PM (#9609240) Homepage
    Seems there's alaways been an unnofficial major version but only certain times do they use it officially for marketing...
    1.0
    1.1
    1.2 --> Java2
    1.3 ... "Java3" ?
    1.4 ... "Java4" ?
    1.5 --> Java5
  • by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @07:58PM (#9609405) Homepage Journal
    well java2 was actually version 1.2, so why not java5 from version 1.5?
  • by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @08:09PM (#9609476)
    I could never figure what the hell Sun was talking about when they would go off on "Java 2", but then sprinkle in "1.4" or "1.5"

    Amen brother. Tell it like it is. How does Sun expect to compete with .Net if they can't even stop confusing everybody over the version numbers. They're just version numbers for crying out loud. Bring them in line ... just make them both higher than they were before, but the same number.

  • by newhoggy ( 672061 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @08:13PM (#9609496)
    Sun's move is actually a very smart move because Java's value is not in the language or the VM, but the libraries. Not just the libraries that come with the JDK, but the huge number of libraries "out there". This move allows them to make all libraries 100% backward compatible.

    Once the greater majority of libraries have been rewritten to fully utilise genericity, it would be time to think about integrating generics into the VM.

  • by Feztaa ( 633745 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @08:28PM (#9609583) Homepage
    just wait until 1.6 comes out, and then we'll see java2 5.0 1.6 ;)

    seriously though, it seems like sun should just pull an emacs, drop the "1.", and use the minor version number as THE version number from now on. Then the ordering would become sane; we'd have java5 now, java6 next, java7 later on, etc.
  • Java vs. JDK (Score:3, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @08:56PM (#9609719) Homepage Journal
    Well, the 'language', the 'ideal' of java is at version 2, while the development kit is 1.4. However, apperantly Sun has decided to rename their development kit from 1.5 to 5. So now we have J2SDK 5. Which is just bizzare.
  • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @09:26PM (#9609847)
    Whe Word for Windows and Word for DOS version numbers were out of sequence and they unified them by eliminating the DOS version and moving the Windows version to 6.

    Actually, there was also a Word 6 for DOS (the final one, I believe), and also Word 6 for Mac. I think the motive was more to do with WordPerfect being at 5.1. Obviously 6 must be better than 5.1. Same as the leapfrogging version numberss that Netscape and IE did for a while.

  • Re:Good to know... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dekeji ( 784080 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:20AM (#9610610)
    These languages are being used for different purposes. For example, at the moment, C# seems mainly used as a Visual Basic replacement for client-side development under windows.

    Same purposes:

    GUI development: C#/.NET (Windows), C#/Gtk# (Linux), Python/Gtk (Linux), Python/wxWindows (cross-platform)

    Server Side: ASP.NET (Windows, Linux), PHP, Python, Perl

    Cross Platform: C++/wxWindows, C++/Qt, Python/wxWindows

    ASP.NET is the biggest threat to Java: that's where server-side development is moving on Windows (Windows developers don't care about "proprietary"); Mono's .NET implementation then gives those people the option to deploy on Linux when they come to their senses.

    Why should they? Python hasn't relegated Perl or C to the scrap heap, neither has PHP.

    Perl has relegated awk to the scrap heap. And Python has pretty much killed Perl's aspiration in several areas (GUI development, Matlab replacement, etc.). PHP is probably far more common than Perl for server-side development now. And all of them have taken away a lot of "market share" from C.

    Languages don't usually die, but they can become less and less relevant. And that can even happen pretty quickly.
  • Re:deeper problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:17AM (#9610882)
    Huh? I can name three Java compilers: javac, jikes, and gjc. There are also several companies that make JVMs: Sun, Microsoft, IBM, and others. The Java standards are defined in the books The Java Programming Language and The Java Virtual Machine Specification.

    The only difference I can see between Java and C++ is that there isn't a separate international entity that defines the standard. Sun, along with members of the Java Community Process, is in control of Java standards.

  • by Sandmann ( 182819 ) <sandmann@daimi.au.dk> on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:06AM (#9611099)
    > And don't even ask about Metafont...

    Why not? It uses the same scheme, only the series converges to e, not pi.
  • by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:14AM (#9611523) Journal
    Still, you shouldn't go around talking about Java Generics being strictly syntactic relative to C++ templates. Did you notice how C++ templates like to be headers? The compiler basically just substitutes in the full text of the template every time you instantiate it.

    Well, that makes part of the power of templates: They have all the good parts of macros, while avoiding most of their problems. The other part of their power comes from the fact that they are indeed more tham macros (and mode than Java/C# generics either): You can specialize them either completely or partially, allowing e.g. more efficient algorithms for special cases. Indeed, they are turing complete, which effectively means that you can make arbitrary complex decisions at compile time.

    Of course this also gives the danger of overdoing it and producing incomprehensible code for little benefit, but then that danger is IMHO not really different from the same danger for pure runtime optimizations (if (special_case) { cryptic_code(); } else { slightly_less_cryptic_code(); }).
  • by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @08:19AM (#9612232) Homepage
    I thought marketing was suppose to create clarity in the minds of the potential customer.

    Aaawww... they're so cute when they're all innocent and naive like that. (^_^)

    Marketing is the reason I can buy two different brands of low-cal Pepsi (Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max(*)); any differences are relatively minor, but Pepsi Max allows men to buy the stuff without being seen drinking a "girl on a diet" drink.

    Marketing is meant to sell stuff. Whether Sun will actually do this with their fscked-up numbering is beyond me. Personally, the whole "Java 2" business confused me to hell; this is worse.

    (*) Known as Pepsi One in the US, I believe.
  • Well, as long as we're being anal, you really don't need to cast all the way down to Integer:

    int i = ((Number) container.get(indx));

    ...would have done just fine. As Bugs would say, "Ain't I a stinker?"

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Working...