"Model 2" prototype status

[Brian Goetz]

I don't see that there's any other sensible choice.  Asking users to 
reason about the partially-heterogeneous translation (where some 
instantiations share a class and some do not) in the context of an 
existing language feature like static fields would be silly -- and 
counterproductive.

(There are other places where the translation will necessarily intrude; 
ideally, we want to keep those to reflective features, those that cut 
across the language-level type system and the runtime class system, such 
as class literals (Foo.class), instanceof, casting, and reflection.)

> I think keeping static fields per-class (in the sense of "the class the user
> wrote down in code", not "some random class artefact the runtime happened to
> emit") would be the most sensible and simple thing to do. No explanation or
> learning necessary, because everything works exactly like it has the last 15
> years in Java.