Talk:Java (programming language)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Java (programming language) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 17, 2005.

Versions?[edit]

This article has a section on 'editions' (SE, ME, etc). But nothing on the differences between versions. Java 1.7 (and 1.8, though not yet finalized) is in some ways quite a different languages from 1.0. Does anyone think there ought to be a 'Versions' section with brief notes on the main changes (or perhaps just the language changes) in each version? These could include links to information on the relevant topic elsewhere on WP.

Concurrent? (Well, sort of, but...)[edit]

In "Java is a general-purpose computer programming language that is concurrent, class-based, object-oriented...". Whilst Java is certainly a language that includes support for concurrent programming it is not one of the languages that puts it up front and centre as a main or major feature of the language. In fact, in Java 8, you need to program in a different style (using streams and lambda style) to get the most benefit out of concurrency - and this is not the prevalent style of most existing Java software, libraries, etc. Java doesn't feel very 'concurrent' compared to, say, Clojure or Erlang. Java has slowly developed and included more and more features (and libraries) for concurrent programming over time, as concurrent programming has become more important. It also retains (necessarily) a set of low-level concurrency mechanisms, which are probably the most used - even though they are the least abstracted and scalable. (For example, a preference for direct use of threads, 'synchronized' and locks, over the higher-level java.util.concurrent library. Put another way, Java seems to carry with it a good deal of concurrency baggage.) Granted that other languages, more concurrent in nature do exist on the JVM - but the JVM is not Java. Therefore, it seems odd to list 'concurrent' first. I think it is fair to say that Java is about as concurrent as it is functional (as of Java 8), so why not list 'functional' too? (But please don't - it is no more functional than Python, Ruby or Groovy.) 185.55.60.122 (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cross-platform? (Well, sort of, but...), Fast? (Well, sort of, but...), More productive? (Well, sort of, but...) ... . Its a consistent theme in Java philosophy, Baggage?(not a problem...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.29.106 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vulnerability to malware[edit]

Not much on here about Java's vulnerability.

Even low tech publications now recommend uninstalling Java because it is vulnerable to hacking.Wythy (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically I should trust your grandmother on computer security? what exactly makes java bytecode more dangerous than say, native code? should i also remove my cpu since it can run native code? and why would i trust a low tech publication on a high tech subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.117.21 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion going on at Java[edit]

Talk:Java#The_programming_language_should_be_the_main_article.

Please convince those idiots to move the article. 201.54.129.39 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016[edit]

I would like to submit a citation for the statement: "particularly for client-server web applications, with a reported 9 million developers." A reliable source that supports this is from https://www.java.com/en/about/. Thank you. Edmadrigal (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is there any third-party/independent source that says this? --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tom29739 [talk] 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)