Skip to content


  1. lukaseder
    17/09/2013 @ 4:51 pm

    What, no one wants new language features, like collection literals, for instance?

    Some examples interpreting a mail by Brian Goetz on the lambda-dev mailing list:


  2. richardwarburton
    17/09/2013 @ 4:57 pm

    I think you’ve misinterpreted the results here. 141/322 agreed with “I’d like to see more effort put into refining existing Java SE standards than creating new ones.” Which would include the kind of change that you’re talking about.


    • lukaseder
      17/09/2013 @ 5:02 pm

      Ah, you’re right. Although, I still think that the language and the platform deserve distinction in this context. While shortcomings in the libraries (e.g. Collections) can be circumvented with third-party libraries, shortcomings in the language cannot be circumvented, except if using something like Scala, or Xtend…


  3. What developers want for future Java standards | Kosovo Java Programmers
    17/09/2013 @ 9:28 pm

    […] Here’s a summary of the 322 responses that they had!Read it HERE! […]


  4. Why do I contribute to the JCP (and at the same time evangelise the Spring framework)? | The Tai-Dev Blog
    16/11/2014 @ 9:05 pm

    […] The key thing to remember about the JCP process is that it is not about innovation. Quite the opposite in fact. For a standard to be created there must have an initial requirement or problem, significant innovation for solutions, ideally some competing ideas and implementations, plenty of evaluation and discussion, and ultimately an agreed approach on how to meet the requirement. It is only at the second from final point the JCP can start creating standards. This is the biggest misunderstanding I encounter when running JSR hack days around the world, particularly with Junior developers, as they think the JCP is some mystical think tank who crank out the latest and greatest frameworks (I appreciate calling EJB ‘latest and greatest’ is very ironic 🙂 ). It’s also worth mentioning at this point that the work of the JCP is now undertaken in the open (I do appreciate the fact that it didn’t used to be, but JSR-348 has made great progress to abolish this). This openness allows anyone who wants to get involved have a voice in the process, and if a standard will cause problems (or is evolving in a problematic fashion) then the community can rise up and publicly duke this out with the spec leads. Now on the flip side to this there exists organisations like Spring Source/Pivotal who are all about innovation, and are constantly pushing the boundaries of what a language or framework can do. Personally I love this. I have an entrepreneurial background, and I thrive on innovation and playing with the latest tech and bleeding-edge frameworks, as do many of the companies I work with. However, as a consultant I appreciate that not all my clients (or the industry in general) think like this, or desire this level of innovation. Some companies are inherently risk adverse (sometimes with good reason) and they want to ensure any investment in technology or training their people in a specific technology offers a long-term return on investment (ROI). Such organisation also often desire portability of application/code, and although the implementation of this on the Java platform may not have been perfect in the past, I’ve personally moved several Java EE applications across differing application servers with minimal effort. In my mind this is where standardisation can offer enormous benefits, particularly if the standardisation work is undertaken out in the open. Finally, last year within the London Java Community we undertook a community survey last year, and many Java developers were in favour of standards (check out the result here […]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

12 − nine =