Talk:Java (programming language)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleJava (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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 17, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
March 23, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 24, 2005Featured article reviewKept
July 25, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
August 8, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 23, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article


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.

Java version[edit]

Why there's no language version in the infobox? Every programming language have field called "Stable release" indicating last stable version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Making space for up-to-date info[edit]

The article has become quite out of date. In particular it included large sections with code samples for what are now semi-obsolete technologies (applets are deprecated, servlets are largely replaced by JAX-RS/JAX-WS and all the frameworks like Spring, Swing GUI went out of favour in Java for JavaFX which is now itself out of favour). So the information is low value and complicates the page, but it is also redundance, because it can be found on the main pages for those technologies.

So I have gone ahead and removed the code samples and added Main Article templates. I hope this will clear up space for better future material on modern Java, and that readers will be less mislead about what current Java involves.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018[edit]

In section Special classes > Applet, please change the link for drawString to remove the %20s. In the current docs, the anchors do not have spaces. Squid314 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: I would be happy to do this for you, but I'm a bit lost in this code soup so could you specify where you want the code changed? Best, L293D ( • ) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Java which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Influenced By[edit]

Should Simula be added to the list of languages that influenced Java? As far as I remember, Simula is the first object oriented language, including inheritance, constructors, etc. The Wikipedia page of Simula states that "The influence of Simula is often understated, and Simula-type objects are reimplemented in C++, Object Pascal, Java, C# and several other languages. "Danieldanielcolo (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No, as there's no direct influence. OO was so well established 5 years before Java (and Oak), and it was well established as a bolt-on to the existing languages such as C and Pascal. I wouldn't even include Smalltalk as an OO influence (much of what influenced C++ was perhaps from Simula, but more stringly via Smalltalk). Nor Eiffel. The most important, and somewhat novel, OO aspect which Java picked up would be the handling of MI through interfaces, thus steering a midway path between Eiffel-like avoidance of it, and the mess of C++ with MI of implementation classes. If Java's OO has a "flavour", it's of being one of the first to encourage mixins as a pattern. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, this sounds reasonable to me; so be it.Danieldanielcolo (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)