JDK version popularity
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Lew on 23 Mar 2010 00:17 (Please attribute quotations.) Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> Desktop apps: most, my guess: 75-90% >> >> Server apps (Java EE): less, my guess: 20-33% Nathan wrote: > Those are the numbers I'm after - I would have guessed approximately > the same, but it helps to hear someone agree. Anyone else agree or > disagree with this estimates? I agree that they're guesses, but there would have to be *some* factual basis behind them to call them "estimates". Umpteen people agreeing on a guess doesn't make it correct. -- Lew
From: Roedy Green on 23 Mar 2010 09:38 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lew(a)lewscanon.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Correction, Java 5 gives you annotations. I should have said "pluggable annotations" -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com Responsible Development is the style of development I aspire to now. It can be summarized by answering the question, �How would I develop if it were my money?� I�m amazed how many theoretical arguments evaporate when faced with this question. ~ Kent Beck (born: 1961 age: 49) , evangelist for extreme programming.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 23 Mar 2010 18:34 On 23-03-2010 09:38, Roedy Green wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Lew<lew(a)lewscanon.com> > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >> Correction, Java 5 gives you annotations. > > I should have said "pluggable annotations" And it would still be wrong. It is "pluggable annotation parser" that is new. Arne
From: Tom Anderson on 23 Mar 2010 22:26 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Lew wrote: > Andrew Thompson wrote: >>> Oh, so you are not bothered with knowing the stats. for amateur dev. >>> firms? > > Tom Anderson wrote: >> No, because they're a contradiction in terms - a firm is a business, and a >> business is not amateurs. They might well be incompetent, but by >> definition, not amateurs! > > By one definition. There is a definition in common use that allows a > professional (i.e., someone paid for their work) to be an amateur: > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amateur> > "3. Someone who is unqualified or insufficiently skillful." > > Pretending that definition does not exist or is not a very common use of > the word is disingenuous at best. Oh, i don't claim either of those things. Merely that it's wrong. tom -- Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129
From: Tom Anderson on 23 Mar 2010 22:28
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:45�am, Tom Anderson <t...(a)urchin.earth.li> wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Andrew Thompson wrote: >>> On Mar 22, 5:43�pm, Nathan <nathan.f...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Where can I find statistics.. ..on JDK version usage in the Java >>>> development industry?.. >>> >>> Of what use the the statistics on *JDK* usage by *developers* of any >>> relevance to anybody? >>> >>> I can understand wanting to know what target *JRE* they aim their app. >>> at, but that in no way depends on the JDK version they use to compile >>> code. >> >> That is technically true, but pedantic and unhelpful. .. ..If you're >> targeting 1.5, you will generally be developing with 1.5. No reason to >> use anything earlier, and no advantage, only risk and annoyance, to >> using anything later. > > Obviously you are a neophyte at cross-compilation. In the last year, I > have developed applets compatible with 1.1, APIs aimed at 1.4, and end > user apps. that require either 1.5 or 1.6. > > Using -bootclasspath option and the appropriate rt.jars, this is > trivially easy. I neither know nor care whether I can get JDKs for > Ubuntu Linux that cover those versions, since I collected the rt.jars > while I was using Windows. Wow. So much easier than just using a matching JDK. tom -- Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129 |