Slashdot Mirror


Java 8 Officially Released

darthcamaro writes "Oracle today officially released Java 8, nearly two years after Java 7, and after much delay. The new release includes a number of critical new features, including Lambda expressions and the new Nashorn JavaScript engine. Java 8, however, is still missing at least one critical piece that Java developers have been asking for, for years. 'It's a pity that some of the features like Jigsaw were dropped as modularity, runtime dependencies and interoperability are still a huge problem in Java,' James Donelan, vice president of engineering at MuleSoft said. 'In fact this is the one area where I still think Java has a long way to go.'"

45 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Does it make Minecraft run faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Probably the most important question in the mind of the general public.

    1. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by iced_773 · · Score: 2

      The answer is probably no. Java isn't terribly inefficient itself, it's the people who write things for it. Minecraft mods in particular tend to be fairly heavy on memory leaks.

    2. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Funny

      java.lang.Thread

    3. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your mistake is in thinking that constructing classes in Java with new would put them on the heap.

      It does not. It puts them into a special cache that is very similar to a stack, and which gets destroyed when the function exists. Objects that require more persistence than the scope they are allocated in migrate to another storage space automatically when the scope or function ends. This check isn't quite as free as just incrementing a stack pointer, but it is still extremely efficient... taking far less time than it would to manipulate values on a global heap.

    4. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quoting the grandparent:

      The one thing they need to do is make Java run multi-threaded ... Oracle should not ignore it's Minecraft userbase.

      Three things seem plain. First, the poster appears to believe that applications may be rendered multithreaded by mere virtue of the programming language they are written in, without special consideration; in other words, an application that would otherwise be singlethreaded may be made instantly multithreaded without special work. Second, the poster did not know Java has threads. Third, the poster believes Oracle cares about Minecraft. All of these things appear to reflect an uninformed poster.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    5. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by linzello · · Score: 2

      No, objects are NOT passed by reference. Java is purely pass by value - Google it.
      I should know, been programming Java since version 1.0

    6. Re:Does it make Minecraft run faster? by Laz10 · · Score: 2

      And how much space would you imagine passing a reference to an int would save, compared to just passing the value of the int?

  2. A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crap, I already have a hard enough time getting non-programmers to understand that Java and JavaScript aren't the same thing.

    1. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same for me, but it was with programmers.

    2. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by gutnor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Javascript was originated at Netscape. Nothing to do with java at all except some desire by Netscape to ride the java wave of that time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

    3. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by wolfgang.groiss · · Score: 2

      Wasn't JavaScript actually created by Netscape and not by Sun?

    4. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Crap, I already have a hard enough time getting non-programmers to understand that Java and JavaScript aren't the same thing.

      Javascript is just Java written in cursive - duh.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "New" is an important qualifier in the summary, because Java has had a Javascript engine since version 6, which included Rhino.

    6. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by gnupun · · Score: 2
      The Netscape folks did license the use of the "Java" brand name from Sun:

      The change of name from LiveScript to JavaScript roughly coincided with Netscape adding support for Java technology in its Netscape Navigator web browser. The final choice of name caused confusion, giving the impression that the language was a spin-off of the Java programming language, and the choice has been characterized by many as a marketing ploy by Netscape to give JavaScript the cachet of what was then the hot new web-programming language.

      http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

    7. Re:A Javascript Engine in the JVM!? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      They've had one for nearly a decade. Rhino has just been replaced by a new one that takes advantage of a new JVM instruction.

  3. whohoo! Swiss cheese! by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just what we need, yet another version to fight with and worry about..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  4. Re:Fanboy Glee by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And another round of everyone getting ask.com toolbars.

    Boooo.

  5. Re:Fanboy Glee by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, that actually sucks some serious monkey balls right there. It doesn't make any sense at all for Oracle to do such a thing with something as important as the Java platform.

    There has been a petition to remove this "feature" for some time now, but despite the millions of Java developers, it never took off.

  6. Modularity by should_be_linear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Person that says "runtime dependencies and interoperability are still a huge problem in Java" clearly never used C/C++ on multiple platforms.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Modularity by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      C/C++ across multiple runtimes on *one* platform are relatively easy, though. Not so with Java. Trying to find a common version of Java that works on any three given enterprise apps can be a real pain in the ass, and I can guarantee you it's not going to be recent or up to date on security patches.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Modularity by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Meh, I wrote my own replacement for freeglut3 in a weekend. It's not hard to have a platform abstraction layer, and many already exist (I just needed my own lightweight one for my games). Since I started out with cross platform toolchain, I have no issue writing code that runs on multiple platforms.

      This is how I port my code written on Linux into Windows, Mac, or BSD: git pull && make

      Not that is is exactly the same as when I use Java, except I get a native application without Java's huge runtime dependencies. Look, Java is now essentially the proprietary option for when you don't want to give away source code. If you have the source code, then the program is cross platform. And if I don't want to distribute sources? Providing binaries for every current modern chipset including ARM and MIPS takes me about 30 minutes total to build with my cross compilers. Yeah, users still have to pick which binary to install, but it's actually less of a headache due to browser user agent string detection -- Less of a PITA than bundling a JRE or displaying, "You don't have (the right version of) Java, download and install Java from [here] before you download and this program."

      Oh, the kitchen sink isn't a big deal? Yeah right, that's why Oracle is now relaxing on the requirements for "compliant" JVMs so they can drop a bunch of shit no one needs and still call themselves Java. Also, with native code you get a smaller attack surface. You see, the cost of cross platform capabilities is just deferred to elsewhere with Java.

      Don't get me wrong, I like Java and still use it. It's the right tool for some jobs. However, saying that cross platform C/C++ is more of a headache than Java is ridiculous. They're all "write once, debug everywhere" options. Enterprise software is even falling out of love with Java given that hardware supports native virtualization now.

    3. Re:Modularity by peppepz · · Score: 2

      Meh, I wrote my own replacement for freeglut3 in a weekend. It's not hard to have a platform abstraction layer, and many already exist (I just needed my own lightweight one for my games). Since I started out with cross platform toolchain, I have no issue writing code that runs on multiple platforms.

      Writing your code is only part of the problem. Things become funny when you have to use code that has already been written by other people. For example, you're using a shared library which exports a symbol which clashes with another library used by another library that is dynamically loaded by another library that you use. Without you knowing.

      I get a native application without Java's huge runtime dependencies

      What are Java's huge runtime dependencies? For instance the Linux version only requires the X11 libraries if you want to display graphics. It will run on a Pentium 1 machine with 16 MB of RAM.

      Providing binaries for every current modern chipset including ARM and MIPS takes me about 30 minutes total to build with my cross compilers.

      This is assuming that you write code that doesn't interface with any existing software on the target, which is a rare occurence. Do you talk directly to the hardware? Your cross compiler won't spare you from having to write hardware-dependent code for each of the flavours of your target.

      However, saying that cross platform C/C++ is more of a headache than Java is ridiculous. They're all "write once, debug everywhere" options.

      With C and C++, you get in the best case to fix up your application to port it into a new operating environment, which is what Java requires you to do in the worst case. And we're not even considering the case of mutually incompatible runtime dependencies.

  7. Criticality of JigSaw by Anrego · · Score: 2

    It seems like a good idea and all, but I wouldn't consider this a critical must have feature.

    My (on the spot off the top of my head) wishlist:
    - swing that doesn't suck (seriously, how has this not yet been fixed)
    - file choosers that don't suck (yes I already said swing, but file choosers just stand out as being particularly bad
    - some standard command line argument processing
    - unsigned types
    - multiple inheritance (yes I know, old argument, but I want it damnit!)

    1. Re:Criticality of JigSaw by gtall · · Score: 2

      Swing that doesn't suck? There's no way Oracle understands even as much as Sun about GUIs, and that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    2. Re:Criticality of JigSaw by JoGiles · · Score: 3

      What do you find missing from JavaFX - I'm one of the engineers on the JavaFX team and am curious about what exactly you need?

  8. Re:As a beginning Java programmer... by Anrego · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, go for it.

    It's rare to see stuff break recently between even major versions of java (with some notable exceptions). Usually when it does, it's the result of people (inevitably the makers of 3rd party libraries you are forced to use) doing stupid shit (often times using stuff that's been deprecated since like java 3).

  9. Re:Damnit by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the fuck are you going on about? Java 8 supports all the previous versions without a problem. Same for Java 7, and all the others before it. If you write code that breaks because of backwards compatibility issues, you're a retard.

    No, they most definitely do NOT. We inherited an infrastructure (from a company we bought) that relies heavily on Java 1.4.2 and Java 1.5 (both on the server end and on the client end). Many of the (entirely internal) apps and servlets will not run in Java 6, much less Java 7. Believe me, we've tried. Too much deprecated stuff (not to mention security keys from Sun that haven't been changed in over half a decade).

    We've got a two year long project going on to upgrade everything - but because so many libraries are shared (including *SUN* libraries that don't work in Java 6/7) across hundreds of projects, it's going to be an upgrade nightmare. In total, we have GIGABYTES of code, spread across a pretty large infrastructure (comprised of over a hundred servers and 5 racks of SAN).

    Of course, our plans are to ensure that all code is up to snuff so we never run into this again - but we had no choice in this matter, since we neither wrote nor planned the original code bases. But what WE do going forward doesn't resolve what we have to do in order to move forward.

    Perhaps you simply haven't done any real Java coding on an Enterprise level? If you had, you'd never had made such a post.

  10. Re:Damnit by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile in the real world:

    -people use methods that have been deprecated since java3 (including 3'rd party vendors that you have to deal with)
    -massive (and expensive) libraries are used years after they stopped being maintained/supported
    -new versions do break old functionality by adding new behavior (often around security)
    -reasonable mistakes/oversights where new situations are introduced and not accounted for in code (statuses are reported differently / new things added to enums / etc)

  11. Re: Damnit by clerum · · Score: 2

    That is likely going to be an issue for any large neglected code base regardless of language.

  12. Re:Damnit by dshk · · Score: 2

    I am working on a 80 000 lines long Java web application in the last 15 years. I have upgraded through 5 major versions, from Java 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 to 1.4 to 5 to 6. I do not remember a single issue related to any of these upgrades. There vere about 2 minor issues when we migrated from Unix to Windows to Linux (related to the case sensitivity of the file system).

  13. Re:No properties by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meh. Explicit getters and setters are annoyingly boilerplate-y but properties aren't much better. They let you save a few characters on the API-use side, but not enough that I find them that important. They do cut down on the massive list of "getFoo, getBar, getBaz, setFoo, setBaz" functions which are divided in your IDE by a bunch of other APIs (oh look, no at-a glance way to tell that Bar is read-only) but that's one of the few good things I have to say about them. They're also annoyingly magic-ish; functions that *look* like simple public members but can have all kinds of side effects and such (yeah, they *shouldn't*, but we already have language semantics for "this operation will invoke a function call" as opposed to "this operation will simply access a member variable" and properties overload the latter to tack on the former.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  14. Re:Damnit by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So I guess the open source community is a retard.
    Where I work, we are still on Java 6 because certain Open Source projects upon which we depend do not work in Java 7. Now, it being Open Source, I suppose we could go in and fix that, but then what is the point of standing on the shoulders of giants if you have to build the giant?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  15. Too little, too late by shaven_llama · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Programmers that really cared about things like lambda expressions have already moved on to Scala and/or Clojure (and of course, it's not as if lambda expression support is the only thing those languages have going for them over Java). I work on a mixed Java/Scala codebase, and we just finished upgrading from JDK6 to 7. I don't see us tackling an upgrade to JDK8 anytime soon (probably won't be until JDK7 stops getting security patches).

  16. Re:Fanboy Glee by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure I like your tone.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  17. Re: Damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No the selling point is that you move your code to any hardware platform that has an interpreter and not need to rewrite any code. Switching between supported Java versions isn't part of that.

  18. Re:Damnit by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    -new versions do break old functionality by adding new behavior (often around security)

    Multiple programs each requiring unique versions of Java (and each only looking at the default Java on the system) coexisting on the same machine used to be my biggest nightmare.

    Now though, it's security. Oh, I'm sorry. Did the vendor sign their .jar files in a way that makes 7_fourtywhatever not shit out dialog boxes? Oh they didn't? Did Sun include simple registry values to fix this? No. They moved to a crazy collection of files in %appdata%? Oh, that should be fun.

    Do you want to run this code?
    Are you absolutely sure you want to run this code?
    No, you can't run it anyway, because your security settings are wrong.
    Would you like to change your settings now?
    No, you can't. You need to change obscure settings.

    Fuck you, Sun. Right in the goat ass.

  19. Did they finally straighten out the 64-bit mess? by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The biggest problem with Java is the fact that it makes dealing with 32-vs-64-bit and user-vs-admin in shell and script environments needlessly painful under Windows.

    I mean, seriously. Why, in 2014, do we STILL have bullshit like:

    java -jar foo.jar arg1 arg2 arg3

    (silent crash), or
    [*very public crash*], or
    "This application requires a 64-bit JVM"

    then, have to screw around figuring out what the path is THIS WEEK to the right java.exe, because every goddamn semi-daily update changes the installation path, so you end up having to do something like:

    {swear violently and with frustrated rage}
    dir "c:\program files\java"
    (see what the installation dir is this week)
    "c:\program files\java\jdk1.7.0.69\bin\java.exe" foo.jar arg1 arg2 arg3

    I mean, would it really kill them to give us an installer that installs BOTH the 32 and 64-bit JDKs, then creates a bunch of symlinks to a file named java.exe that -- when launched -- looks at the jarfile, determines whether it needs a 32- or 64-bit JVM, finds the latest 32- or 64-bit JVM as appropriate, and launches it -- passing the path to itself and the rest of the args as args?

    This is an endless source of pain to me. Java is my main language & I end up using it for almost everything, and its awful handling of commandline launches has driven me crazy for years. When I write some tool I use a lot, I'll go to the trouble of setting it up to build with JSmooth so it can wrap the whole thing in a .exe file... but that's a royal pain in itself, and I'm dreading the day when I have to figure out how to use it to wrap a 64-bit Java app (I'm not even sure it can).

    Java also needs to seriously improve the way it deals with UAC... like maybe install a privileged Java background service (that's normally asleep and idle) so we can launch apps as regular users under Windows 7, and programatically auto-elevate via UAC by having Java delegate sensitive tasks to that background service when necessary under Windows 7 or later. Or at least, create something like WindowsUACException that's a subclass of IOException (so Windows-aware apps can catch it explicitly and deal with it gracefully, without breaking Windows-unaware apps that are oblivious to UAC) that gets thrown when something fails due to UAC, instead of throwing some misleading Exception that makes it look like the filesystem is missing.

    Regardless, Java's handling of Windows commandline launches of executable Jarfiles *sucks* under Java 7, and we can only hope they've had mercy on us and made it less dysfunctional under Java 8.

  20. Re:Damnit by dysmal · · Score: 2

    Our accounting people have to have 7.17 installed so that JPMorgan/Chase will work for them. Another dept uses a site for a supplier of parts that only runs on Java 7.45 with the security slide bar thingy set to "Medium" (which is as low as you can go for some reason). Our Mac's (designer people) can't use a Kodak site because Apple forced out the latest version which is incompatible. Our SAN requires 7.17.

    There's a special place in hell for Java and i can't wait to dance on it's charred corpse when it finally dies.

    I'd gladly embrace /. Beta if it would somehow rid the world of Java.

  21. Re:Jigsaw by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Far BETTER would be if Java could be aware of how much ram the computer has, and enlarge its heaps as necessary & possible. Few things piss me off more than getting OutOfMemoryException on a computer with 16 gigs because I forgot to manually specify a larger heap size when I launched some executable jarfile from the commandline.

    I mean, seriously. Would it really be *that* hard for the JVM to handle TWO sets of memory pools instead of just one, so that if the Eden space (for example) gets exhausted and is due for GC, the JVM would check with Windows to see how much physical RAM is free, and if there's a lot of it, just allocate a new chunk that's roughly double the size of the old one, start sticking new data into the new one immediately, and consolidate data from the old one into the new one as a very, very low-priority non-blocking background thread that eventually returns the first chunk of RAM to Windows once everything in it has been either moved or freed. For longer-lived services where memory leaks are a real issue, you could tell it, "expand by doubling up to [max megs or percent free], then fall back to conventional garbage collection -- possibly, grabbing a new chunk of ram that's the same size as the old one if possible so the time-consuming object-copy can be deferred and done in the background"

  22. Re:You evidently don't have any idea what you're s by jrumney · · Score: 2

    IBM WebSphere was always tightly tied to specific versions of Java. My guess is that as an "enterprise" application, they decided to rely on "enterprise" vendors that have a tendancy towards this kind of stupidity. Using mostly Apache projects you don't tend to run into these problems.

  23. Re:As a beginning Java programmer... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    ~$ java -version
    java version "1.7.0_51"

    Java has always been 1.x under the covers. We went through the 'Java 2' phase, now it's just Java SE.

    FWIW, programmers will still refer to it as JDK 1.8

  24. Re:Did they finally straighten out the 64-bit mess by msobkow · · Score: 2

    It's simple. If you have a 32 bit OS, install the 32 bit version of Java. If you have a 64 bit OS, install the 64 bit version of Java.

    I have never since Java 1.0 seen a Java program that required the 32 bit or the 64 bit version. That's the runtime, and has nothing to do with how the JVM byte code itself is structured. I don't even know how you could make a Java executable depend on the version of JVM short of using the bindings for calling binary libraries -- in which case you're dealing with crapware, not Java.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  25. Re:Bundled Crapware? by evilsofa · · Score: 2

    You only get the crapware if you get it from java.com, so don't get it there. If you get it from oracle, you'll get it without crapware:

    http://www.oracle.com/technetw...

  26. Re:Did they finally straighten out the 64-bit mess by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

    I only wish it were that simple. On my computer at work, I have at least one Java app that literally dies on launch unless you have BOTH 32-bit AND 64-bit Java installed. It exhibits this behavior on everybody's computer, and not just mine. Nobody, including its author, really knows why.

    That oddball app notwithstanding, installing only a 64-bit JRE on a computer running 64-bit Windows 7 is NOT the universal solution. Google finally fixed it, but for the longest time, you literally couldn't do Android software development under Eclipse on a computer with ONLY a 64-bit JRE. It would randomly forget how to find the SDK, fail compilation due to bugs in your code that didn't actually exist (if you cut the class into the clipboard, saved the now-empty class, then pasted it back, all the errors would go away), completely mangle R.java, and would do a phantom cursor-left whenever you typed a semicolon at the end of a line, so that when you pressed return a quarter-second later, it moved the semicolon down to the next line and caused an error.

    There a other examples of vehemently-32bit apps, but it's late and Android-Eclipse is the huge one that drove me nuts for about 2 years. Note that I'm not conflating Android and Java... Eclipse itself is what was screwing up when run on a 64-bit VM.

  27. Re:You evidently don't have any idea what you're s by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    That's because websphere runs by default on IBM's proprietary JVM.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.