Optional require(s) NonNull

[Paul Benedict]

Gregg,

I am not sure of the kind of response you wish to evoke....

The JDK is not a democratic development effort; it's lead by hand-picked
engineers who have their ears open to the community. At the end of the day,
the engineer's are responsible for making the "best" decision -- not
mailing list subscribers like you and me. I don't see how your complaint is
specific to this development community; I bet you can find people saying
the same negative things about CodeHaus, SourceForge, and Apache.

Paul


On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Gregg Wonderly <gregg at wonderly.org> wrote:

>
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > So, let's keep our input on the subject to that which is within the
> design center of the current implementation, rather than trying to convince
> us to change the design center.
>
> Over the years, there has been several things about Java which the larger
> community has wanted to change.  Practically this kind of response has been
> a common theme in how the community has been treated.
>
> In JDK 2.x, Sun engineers added all kinds of new stuff which completely
> broke all kinds of things and made quite a disaster out of about 2 years of
> Java experience.  I know of several companies who looked at JDK1.8 as a
> remarkable step forward and tried to develop projects in JDK 2.x, expecting
> it to only get better.  The end result was that they wasted time and real
> money on something that would never work out beneficial to them.  Sun
> seemed to have learned about this given the subsequent statements at
> JavaOne and elsewhere about how that debacle would never happen again.
>  Stability was going to be a design center.  It seemed like Sun might be
> listening, but I found that not to be the case for all engineers at Sun as
> I tried to get various Sun led JSRs to focus on things which I needed Java
> to do well.
>
> I find it particularly strange that throughout the years, Java engineering
> from Sun and now Oracle seems to be focused on just what is desirable to
> them.  I understand, given the position of where this development is at
> now, and what these discussions are pressing, that perhaps there is a huge
> gap such as you describe, between your design center, and what the
> community, at large, is asking.  It begs the question though, why does this
> gap exist?  Why didn't the community end up involved early enough to
> perhaps be more influential on the design center?
>
> What seem ideal to me, is that Java actually would do more of what the
> developers want, and less of what Oracle engineers think that it should do.
>  Why, for more than a decade, that has been such a foreign concept is
> beyond me.  But, once again, we seem to be seeing evidence that Oracle is
> not a custodian or a participant, but rather the dictator of where things
> will go.
>
> Seeing lots of different JVM based languages being developed, with similar
> functionality, but with a couple of new features tacked on, seems to
> indicate to me that many different people have given up on getting Java
> fixed to take care of issues important to them as well.
>
> Gregg Wonderly
>
>