Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E39AD10B39 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5169 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2015 16:43:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 5035 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jan 2015 16:43:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 5021 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jan 2015 16:43:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:43:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of luc@spaceroots.org designates 80.67.176.229 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.67.176.229] (HELO smtp.spaceroots.org) (80.67.176.229) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:43:19 +0000 Received: from [192.168.163.2] (lehrin.spaceroots.org [192.168.163.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.spaceroots.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF4F1542C3 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:42:55 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=spaceroots.org; s=mail; t=1421340176; bh=vFi7IZFMFerJRjZcxzQ2OqmwFtIhT+BFLsBlKTLnTxo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=PKojXjkpTwBfPJZm0s026Ei0sHX4x7SUPhcXQDb/4JT/xd9I/z8RubTKD/AZ1ZKff avlTROSiNwfmyAOSNm7huG5IdMheuXRtI6vAjWsqB20WSdet8w1VGUFruniGK+GxYi D/g56nB+QIB7LzruZ4MheVoN2Rjcrqf5F38r1BHY= Message-ID: <54B7EE03.7010408@spaceroots.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:42:43 +0100 From: Luc Maisonobe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Math] Java version References: <54B24ABA.2020600@spaceroots.org> <4cb690735e1a8d748f3f8f71ae95dd52@scarlet.be> In-Reply-To: <4cb690735e1a8d748f3f8f71ae95dd52@scarlet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Le 15/01/2015 17:15, Gilles a écrit : > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote: >> Good call, Silviu! >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> https://plumbr.eu/blog/most-popular-java-environments-in-2014 >> >> http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/Java-Tools-Technologies.html >> >> http://source.android.com/source/initializing.html >> >> https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html >> >> http://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-android-sdk-versions > > 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? I don't think so. If you take the use case Hank pointed out (Android phones), many people want to be able to add new apps at will, but only a smaller number will change the system completely and the JVM that comes with it. And yes, there are Android applications that use Apache Commons Math (and Orekit ;-). best regards, Luc > > > Regards, > Gilles > > [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html > > >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Silviu Burcea >> >> wrote: >> >>> I think Rebel Labs or Plumbr have some metrics about JDK usage. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Hank Grabowski >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > 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. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Gilles >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > > Counts up to now: >>> > > >>> > > Java 7 -> 2 >>> > > Java 7 or 8 -> 2 >>> > > Java 8 -> 2 >>> > > >>> > > Any more opionions? >>> > > >>> > > Gilles > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org