Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of johnsonb@umbc.edu designates
 130.85.25.79 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: [Math] Java version
From: Bruce A Johnson <johnsonb@umbc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <54B811A9.7010107@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:34:46 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5431EE4C-0B8C-45E6-9A47-42627C76E5DD@umbc.edu>
References: <74a7078bd05c3a3cba82722636420ec3@scarlet.be>
 <1061823518.836672.1421343144695.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10941.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
 <54B811A9.7010107@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>

I=E2=80=99m very happily starting to use Java 8 and am making lots of =
use of JavaFX (not so relevant to Math), and lambdas and streams =
(playing around with a little numpy like interface to Math).
So, on the one hand I=E2=80=99m all for Java 8, but on the other hand =
there are things I=E2=80=99d rather see done for the Math 4 release and =
trying to update Math to use Java 8 features could slow the resolution =
of existing issues.  So I=E2=80=99d lean towards a release of Math 4 in =
the not to distant future that doesn=E2=80=99t rely on Java 8 features, =
and then a move towards Math 5 with careful thought as to how it could =
benefit from Java 8.=20

Bruce


> On Jan 15, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> How many of the mobile developers have to have a 4.0 release?  I =
suspect that 90% would be fine using 3.4, and the remaining 10% can wire =
the results of the calculation using alternative means such as a REST or =
Socket service.
>=20
> Cheers,
> - Ole
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 01/15/2015 11:32 AM, venkatesha m wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Thursday, 15 January 2015 10:45 PM, Gilles =
<gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:05:27 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
>>> You would think so, but Java 6 hasn't been updated since early 2013
>>> and is
>>> still a quarter or more of the installed Java base.  The support for
>>> highly
>>> scalable parallel operations that the new Java 8 language features
>>> get is
>>> very tempting though.  Could we have a Java 8 branch on the core
>>> library
>>> and release a CM for each of them until the vestigial versions are
>>> sufficiently low enough on the usage chain?  I know there are some
>>> versioning and release nightmares that could introduce but with the
>>> parallel functions maybe it would be worth it unlike the changes =
that
>>> 6 to
>>> 7 would give for the project.
>> Although the consensus would say "Java 7", but then we'd lose the =
newer
>> and even better (hopefully) facilities, and still be "old" when
>> everybody
>> will have change their phone already. ;-)
>>=20
>> Would you be willing to volunteer with a concrete plan?
>>=20
>> Best,
>> Gilles
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Gilles
>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Good call, Silviu!
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations
>>>>> (823 in
>>>>> total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came
>>>>> out (link
>>>>> below).  At that time the break down was: Java 5 at 0.4%, Java 6 =
at
>>>>> 36%,
>>>>> Java 7 at 61% and Java 8 at 2.5%.  I'm still looking for more data
>>>>> on
>>>>> this,
>>>>> but Rebel Labs has a similar article (not broken down by version)
>>>>> that
>>>>> showed that 65% of development was on Java 7 by May of last year
>>>>> too. I
>>>>> doubt the balance was Java 8 at that point, so there must be a
>>>>> sizable
>>>>> Java
>>>>> 6 contingent still.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> One other thing that came to mind with the new Java 8 features is
>>>>> how that
>>>>> is supported on Android.  As far as I can tell Android KitKat, as
>>>>> well as
>>>>> the latest release of the Android Studio and SDK Tools doesn't
>>>>> support
>>>>> Java
>>>>> 8 yet.  In fact, according to the Android development setup page
>>>>> versions
>>>>> between (and including) Gingerbread and KitKat require JDK 6, not
>>>>> 7.  I
>>>>> haven't coded Android recently to know whether it does work on JDK
>>>>> 7 or if
>>>>> is just a requirement but it is peculiar that the main =
instructions
>>>>> call
>>>>> for JDK 7 installation and then the footnote specifically tells
>>>>> developers
>>>>> to pull a different JDK version for those earlier platforms.  I
>>>>> can't tell
>>>>> where the Java 7 language features were added to Android before =
the
>>>>> current
>>>>> version, Lollipop.  I was surprised Lollipop wasn't on their
>>>>> dashboard but
>>>>> according to the AppBrain statistics it accounts for far less than
>>>>> 1% of
>>>>> the installed phones.  So best case scenario would be Jelly Bean
>>>>> supports
>>>>> 7
>>>>> (no indication that's true), which means 85% of Android devices
>>>>> would be
>>>>> covered if we set a Java 7 minimum.  Next best would be KitKat
>>>>> (more
>>>>> likely
>>>>> but not according to the install instructions) which means 39%.  =
As
>>>>> for
>>>>> Java 5, that was needed for pre-Gingerbread Android OS which
>>>>> accounts for
>>>>> 0.5% of the market.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I guess with all of that it's clear that Java 5 is unnecessarily
>>>>> being
>>>>> maintained at this point.  Both surveys of servers and Android =
show
>>>>> far
>>>>> less than 1% usage.  It seems Java 6 penetration may be still be
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> substantial, even conservatively at on the order of 25% (if Java 7
>>>>> and 8
>>>>> adoption picked up dramatically in 6 months after the surveys as I
>>>>> imagine
>>>>> it did to some extent).  So it seems the most reasonable
>>>>> conservative play
>>>>> would be to stick with Java 6, especially if we can confirm that
>>>>> between
>>>>> half to 85% of Android devices can't use Java 7 language features.
>>>>> A more
>>>>> aggressive play would be to set a requirement for Java 7.  Setting
>>>>> the
>>>>> minimum at Java 8 at this time seems overly aggressive at this =
time
>>>>> though.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> https://plumbr.eu/blog/most-popular-java-environments-in-2014
>>>>>=20
>>>>> http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/Java-Tools-Technologies.html
>>>>>=20
>>>>> http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html
>>>>>=20
>>>>> https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
>>>>>=20
>>>>> http://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions
>>>>>=20
>>>> I wonder: Isn't the "end of public updates"[1] (scheduled on April
>>>> of
>>>> this year for Java 7) somehow going to change that picture a lot?
>>>> If not, why?
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>=20
>>>> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Silviu Burcea <
>>>>> silviuburceadev@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>  I think Rebel Labs or Plumbr have some metrics about JDK usage.
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Hank Grabowski <
>>>>>> hank@applieddefense.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Java 8 has only been out for less than a year.  There is still a
>>>>>> sizable
>>>>>>> percentage of groups that have not converted up to Java 8 for
>>>>>> myriad
>>>>>>> reasons.  While I was surprised that we are requiring backwards
>>>>>>> compatibility with the ten year old Java 5 I think jumping all
>>>>>> the way
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> requiring Java 8 may be a bit too much of a stretch.  I would
>>>>>> vote for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> minimum required version of Java 7 with the ability to run in
>>>>>> Java 8.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> wish I could find metrics to quantify the penetration of each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> JDKs,
>>>>>>> but my gut says Java 7 would a reasonable cutoff.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Gilles
>>>>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Raising this issue once again.
>>>>>>>>>> Are we going to upgrade the requirement for the next major
>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>>>>  [ ] Java 5
>>>>>>>>>>  [ ] Java 6
>>>>>>>>>>  [ ] Java 7
>>>>>>>>>>  [ ] Java 8
>>>>>>>>>>  [ ] Java 9
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Counts up to now:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Java 7      -> 2
>>>>>>>> Java 7 or 8 -> 2
>>>>>>>> Java 8      -> 2
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Any more opionions?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Gilles
>> My Vote for  both Java 7 and 8
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>=20


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org