Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Java 1.5.0 Now Officially Java 5.0

Posted by timothy on from the these-version-numbers-you-could-leap-to dept.

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."

60 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Other Famous Version Number Skips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slackware's comes to mind. Any others?

    1. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can think of two:
      Windows 3.1 to Windows 95: 91.9 version numbers skipped
      Windows 98 to Windows 2000: 1902 version numbers skipped

    2. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In that vein, Sim City 3000 to 4 dropped back 2996.

    3. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by Shulai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pike programming language (underused but very nice indeed, I prefer Pike to Java) comes from version 0.6 to version 7.0

      --
      Got Pike?
    4. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by NitsujTPU · · Score: 5, Funny

      Windows XP = Windows written using the buddy system, on daily builds, where code is thrown away at the end of the day if it isn't complete. The entire design is sitting on flash cards taped to a filing cabinet somewhere in a break room at Microsoft.

    5. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by Kourino · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Emacs.

      Some time ago, the developers realized that GNU Emacs would probably never change its major version number (which is 1). So, after some point, instead of "GNU Emacs 1.x.y", they started dropping the 1 (since it was constant information and therefore redundant). So the current release of GNU Emacs is actually 1.21.3, but it's called "GNU Emacs 21.3".

      This actually appears to be what Sun is doing now. They've done it before with Solaris/SunOS ... twice, in fact.

    6. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by dosius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sun's done it before too: Solaris "7" is actually 2.7

      Moll.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    7. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by x0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first release of Windows NT, as architected by Dave Cutler of VAX/VMS fame, started at 3.1. The fact that 16bit Windows was at 3.1 at that point is irrelevent. NT was a complete rewrite, hence NT = New Technology. Therefore, it should really have been released as 1.0.

      - Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    8. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by aacool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A picture editing program I use (and like) called Picasa went to version 1.618 from version 1 - no prizes for guessing why

    9. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by the_soulman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by dnahelix · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ratio of 1:1.618 is known as the Golden Ratio

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
    11. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by jrockway · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well the first version of TeX was 3.

      Then there was 3.1
      then 3.14
      then 3.141 ...
      now it's 3.14159

      And don't even ask about Metafont...

      --
      My other car is first.
    12. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    13. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Dont forget there was a word for Unix... I still have the SCO (forgive me for mentioning them) version somewhere around here ;-)

      Well, I didn't know that. But SCO Unix was originally MS Xenix. Microsoft Word for UNIX Systems Release 5.1:

      Microsoft(r) Word for UNIX Systems Release 5.1 from SCO is the most powerful multiuser word processor available today. It brings the best MSDOS word processing features to multiuser UNIX Systems. Ideal for offices of any size, Microsoft Word 5.1 allows you to effortlessly combine text, graphics, and data to create virtually any type of document-with excellent formatting and printer support. Microsoft Word for UNIX Systems is designed for today's demanding professionals who want the best word processing features.
      Apparently discontinued in 1996. Obviously, it could be ported to Linux trivially, Bill's dead body being the only obstacle.
    14. Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Informative


      Christ, as a degree holding classicist, I can't let you get away with two sentences with that many errors in them.

      XP is a long used symbol for Christ, dating back to some of the earliest christian artwork, with the symbols pronounced Chi-Rho in Roman. We could say the year of XP is 1.

      Let's take it one at a time:

      XP is a long used symbol for Christ

      XP is not a symbol for Christ. It is the first two letters of the word "Christ" in Greek.

      dating back to some of the earliest christian artwork

      Dating back actually to the battle of the Milvian bridge, where the would-be Roman emperor Constantine fought the would-be Roman emperor Maxentius. The actual story of why they were both fighting goes back to Diocletian's division of the empire to a system of 2 senior and 2 junor rulers (2 Augusti and 2 caesars). Constantine saw the sign "XP" in the sky on his way to the bridge with his army (accounts vary), and he interpreted it to mean that if he had his soldiers paint XP on their shields, christ would help him win. Some accounts include that he heard the words "In hoc signo vinces", or "In this sign, conquer".

      with the symbols pronounced Chi-Rho in Roman

      No, no, no, no! Chi and Rho are GREEK letters. Not to mention ROMAN is not a language. Latin is the language spoken by the Roman people. X and P (Chi and Rho) are the first two letters of XPISTOS, chi-rho-iota-sigma-tau-omicron-sigma, or the Greek translation of the hebrew word for messiah, "one annointed by god".

      We could say the year of XP is 1

      Or, we could say that the year of XP (i.e. the year that it became significantly important) is 312 A.D., the year of the battle at the milvian bridge.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  2. Winamp didn't skip version 4 by MikeXpop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Winamp 5 isn't exactly Winamp version 5. It's more like 3.5. They used the number 5 because they wanted the features of 3 with the speed and ability of 2. 2+3=5. And that's where they got the number.

    --
    Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    1. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by GnuVince · · Score: 4, Funny

      Winamp could go with 8 for the next version and go with fibonacci version numbers

    2. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by Epistax · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it has the features of 3 AND the ability of 2 any boolean logitician will tell you that the version number should be 6.

    3. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by realdpk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by VertigoAce · · Score: 5, Funny

      Winamp v8: twice the features of 3 with the speed and ability of 2. Or none of the features of 3 with four times the speed and ability of 2. Or the speed and ability of 2 cubed.

    5. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by dnoyeb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well java2 was actually version 1.2, so why not java5 from version 1.5?

    6. Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you like that, it's worth noting that the version numbers of Knuth's masterpieces TeX and METAFONT are converging to pi and e, respectively.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Strongly Typed Container Classes by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From briefly viewing some literature about Java 1.5.0 (er, 5.0... W0w!) the feature that excites me most about this is the ability to strongly type container classes, such as one can do in Ada or C++.

    Joy.

    1. Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes by MarkWPiper · · Score: 4, Interesting
      While this is a nice feature, it is strictly (at least for now), syntactic. The difference is that the expense of casting is still occurring under the hood; you just no longer have to bother typing it out. I believe people are referring to it as 'autoboxing'. Therefore, these strongly typed container classes are not as powerful as C++'s templates.

      I read a pretty good interview w/ Eckel and that guy who has done most of the work on C#. The creator of C# was bashing Java's generics, because they aren't giving the full performance possible. And I agree. There is still such a thing as performance critical code, and Java can make it frustratingly hard to write it. Providing featureful, fast data structures would be a good place to start.

      I can't find the article I'm referencing, but this sums up Eckel's view.

      Pizza was an alternative implementation of generics for Java. I wish that Sun had chosen this project as their basis for 1.5's generics, rather than GJ (Generic Java). I believe its implementation is much closer to that of C++'s templates. I'd love to use pizza, but it's just not wide-spread enough to justify it in enterprise code.

    2. Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes by therealmoose · · Score: 5, Informative
      Auto(un)boxing is the (de)encapsulated of raw types (int, char) into their wrapper classes (Integer, Character) and back as required. Instead of:
      int i = ((Integer) container.get(indx));
      auto(un)boxing allows you to just type:
      int i = container.get(indx);
      It is quite unrelated to generics.
    3. Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes by newhoggy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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(); }).
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. 95 - 2000 by alitaa · · Score: 3, Funny

    that number skip was quite huge too :p

  5. Not really that odd - Emacs did it already by Chainsaw · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't GNU Emacs really at version number 1.21.x.y but they just skip the leading "1." when writing it? Then this would be the same, except that it's just a programming language and not an operating system in desperate need of a good editor.

    --
    War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
    1. Re:Not really that odd - Emacs did it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish people would stop saying that about Emacs, when there exists a perfectly good vi implementation for it.

  6. not even the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sun already jumped 1.2 and called it "2".

  7. Good to know... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  8. they must have Jedi on the payroll by eidechse · · Score: 5, Funny

    "This is the version you're looking for."
    [waves hand Alec Guinness style]

  9. Systems already in place. by ameoba · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should've just adopted an existing versioning system such as the one GNU Emacs uses and called it Java 15.0 to avoid creating any unnecessary confusion.

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  10. For non-physics people: by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 5, Informative

    6.022E23 is Avogadro's number, the number of atoms in a mole of an element.

    1. Re: For non-physics people: by Noren · · Score: 3, Informative
      That's only true for an ideal gas at STP (Standard temperature and pressure). Admittedly, this is where a lot of courses emphasize moles to learn the Ideal Gas Rule. In the real world things aren't quite so simple (and no real gas is truly ideal, that's just a first-order approximation.)

      The formal definition of a mole is that it's the number of atoms in 12 grams of the isotope Carbon-12. The molecular weight of atoms as listed on a periodic table represent the average mass of a mole of the element in naturally occurring proportions. In the case of Carbon, small amounts of the 13C and 14C isotopes result in an average mass slightly above 12.

    2. Re:For non-physics people: by fcw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now also known as Javagadro's number, the number of functions in the standard class libraries.

  11. this is why "java 2" was such a dumb idea by jbellis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. :)

  12. Embarrassing and Harmful by fastdecade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Embarrassing and Harmful by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 3, Funny

      Java has a good name for professionalism, but whoever came up with this ought to hang their head in shame.

      You misspelled "ought to be hung".

      --
      I love C++
  13. *sigh* I hate marketing by Croaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  14. Par for the course with Sun by notsoclever · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember when they released Solaris 2.7 as Solaris 7 instead? Nothing new here.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
  15. Re:Where does the 2 come into this? by barcodez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. However when they went from 1.2 to 1.3 they hadn't made too many major changes so they didn't bother and the same for 1.4. There are lot's of changes in 1.5 so I guess they thought they should give it a new number. However Java 2 version 5 is stupid as is J2SE 5 and J2EE 5 - all very confusing for everyone.

    --

    ----
  16. As a Java developer, I'm all for it by damm0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, if it works as a marketing ploy and increases the number of people who want my skills, I'm all for it.

  17. Now it's obvious... by omicronish · · Score: 5, Funny

    that Java is better than C#/.NET: 5.0 > 2.0. I was so confused as to which I should choose. Thanks Sun for helping!

  18. Java numbering... by Kindaian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  19. What world do YOU live in? by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. java -version by mpn14tech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  21. Linus makes announcement by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news:

    Linus Torvald announced today that the next version of the Linux kernel will be released a "Linux Kernel Version 11". Said Torvald, "Thats one more than Mac's OS, and several more than Microsoft, so people will know its better."

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  22. Not as fast as gentoo linux by ringer9cs · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happened from Gentoo Linux 1.4 to Gentoo Linux 2004.0!!!

  23. Re:Where does the 2 come into this? by EvanED · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. Pedant time... by zoney_ie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Windows 95 = Windows 4.00.950 on MSDOS 7
    Windows 98 = Windows 4.10.1998 on MSDOS 7
    Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.00.2195
    For completeness...
    Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1.2600

    Come on, out-pedant me...

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    1. Re:Pedant time... by ameoba · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comparing version numbers of Windows and Windows NT is senseless. It's not like Windows became NT; they were completely separate codebases had parallel development for a number of years. ...and you left out ME.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:Pedant time... by Laser+Lou · · Score: 3, Funny

      They raised it to MS-DOS 8, even though it had fewer commands. If they really want to kill DOS, they should announce a product called "MS-DOS Forever."

      --
      No data, no cry
    3. Re:Pedant time... by ralian · · Score: 4, Informative
      From http://bug.lockhead.org/build%20numbers.html:
      • Windows Longhorn: ( Most recent known build) PDC build 4051 (Leaked Builds: 3683 4008 4015 4029 4051, 4053)
      • Windows Server 2K3: 5.2.3790
      • XP SP2: 2082 beta 2
      • Windows XP: 5.1.2600 (SP1a)
      • Windows 2000: 5.00.2195 (SP4)
      • Windows NT 4: 4.00.1381 SP6a
      • Windows ME: 4.9.3000
      • Windows 98 SE: 4.10.2222
      • Windows 98: 4.10.1998
      • Windows 95: 4.00.950A
      --

      -raph

  25. Version *strip* not skip. by Turadg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly. This isn't a version number "skip"; it's a version number "strip".

    The second digit becomes the first and the third the second. This is perfectly in line with accepted norms when you consider the improvements of 1.4.2 over 1.4.1. For minor increments, Sun had to resort to seriously odd numbers like 1.4.2_04.

    Makes sense to me. The "2" in J2SE is unfortunate, but at this point the numericity of that character is dead. J2SE, J2EE and J2ME are just brands, not versions.

  26. Borg Numbering by Boyceterous · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should have called it
    Seven of Nine
    and introduced a couple of bulging container classes.

  27. Re:deeper problem by bunratty · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  28. Aerospace Industry by greyhoundofdeath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let take a look at some airliner sequences. Just when you think they're being consistent, they zing you.

    Airbus:
    A300
    A310 up 10
    A320 up 10
    A330 up 10
    A340 up 10
    A319 down 21
    A321 up 2
    A380 up 59

    Boeing
    707
    727 up 20
    737 up 10
    747 up 10
    757 up 10
    767 up 10
    777 up 10
    717 down 60
    7E7 D0?
    I guess they've been using HEX all along. Who the $#%^ versions in HEX?

  29. Re:Don't you see the pattern? by trout_fish · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the article...

    This isn't Java5, it is Java 2 v5