On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:21 AM robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > I think enum was a reserved word from the beginning - like goto - if not it > was VERY early on when it was added. Still, the code would of run on the > latest JVM, it might not of compiled. Outside of that possible case, I can’t > think of another keyword that has been added - maybe the recent addition of > ‘var’ - but don’t get me started on what it happening with Java now - I think > there are very different forces at work than the founding principles.
You might be right on the history of "enum", but the point is that any time you add a keyword, something breaks. The point that old code can run on new JVM is inapplicable in my opinion when comparing Java and Go. Also, it may not always be a good thing to preserve backward compatibility. Opinions differ on this, but I think generics in Java is a convoluted piece of mess. > > On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:12 AM, Burak Serdar <bser...@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:59 AM robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > To this day, you can take a “binary” written for Java 1.0 and it will run > under the latest JRE. You can compile Java 1.0 source code with the latest > compiler. This is an amazing accomplishment that can’t be understated. > > > That is not exactly true, is it? Any time a new keyword is added to > the language something breaks. They added "enum" at some point, and > all programs using enum as an identifier stopped compiling. > > > Over the years, with the benefit of hindsight, many of the Java APIs were > deemed insufficient, or better designs emerged, and they were deprecated, > with the warning, "may be removed in a future release”. > > To my knowledge a deprecated API in the stdlib has never been removed. The > “deprecation” label is more of a “hey, there are better ways of doing this, > and you should use them…”. > > I think Go would be best served by ensuring that any future release is 100% > backwards compatible with previous releases. This is the number one aspect of > Java (IMO) that lead to its success - it drastically reduced the > churn/expense of delivering software. Businesses like this…. Developers like > this... > > In the end, if Go can deliver on the cross platform (some of the OS specific > APIs were a bad choice in some ways IMO, although it is not a deal breaker), > and the 100% backwards compatibility, I don’t see any reason why Go couldn’t > become as ubiquitous as Java. > > I believe in the end there will two languages left standing. Java for > enterprise apps, and Go for system tools, services, and even OS building. It > is nearly 2020 - manual memory management is done, dynamic languages are > done... > > Even in the browser, I think Google has figured out what Java folks knew 20 > years ago, JS is a mess, and having a VM in the browser is the way to go. > WebAssembly is the poor mans Java applet. We’re coming full circle… > > So to sum up, 100% backwards compatibility is a key to Go’s dominance moving > forward, again IMO ) > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
