On: Java SE 8 Proposed Final Draft Specification — Dra...

[grogenaut]

Yes, Yes I do.

And as for backward compatibility, they already did. I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe (), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity.

: The various xml parsers and other library thrash really do break backwards bytecode compatiblity.

[laureny → grogenaut]

> I love the myth that java never broke backwards compatibility. Bytecode maybe (), they definitely broke syntax compatiblity.

Proof?

[mhixson → laureny]

If by "syntax compatibility" he means code that compiles in one version does not compile is another, that's definitely true. Name collisions with the new default methods in Java 8 are one source. If your Comparator-implementing class has a method "void reverseOrder()", that will no longer compile.

Here's a couple of recent examples the Guava authors have fixed. Fortunately they were in internals and not their public API, so users won't care.

https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/detail?r=7d... https://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/detail?r=25...

[laureny → mhixson]

This happens for all languages and is not usually considered as "a language breaking backward compatibility", it's purely a library concern.

What is meant by "breaking backward compatibility" is when the grammar is altered in a way that makes existing sources no longer compile.

[grogenaut → laureny]

enum