this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
380 points (97.0% liked)
Greentext
4402 readers
814 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Java is religiously backwards compatible. Modern java projects are not as enterprisey and boilerplatey, but, as jdk21 is backwards compatible with jdk1.3, you can still happily write code as if it's 2003.
Additionally, the java space is huge, so just wildly googling will probably not help you that much.
Is that why every single application will only work with some ancient version of Java?(usually 8, sometimes 1.6 or 11)
I can’t think of many cases where Java 21 is a drop in replacement, and I don’t think I anyone actually used 17.
That's entirely the fault of applications (or more likely their libraries) using internal APIs or JNI. As long as it isn't doing anything screwy with reflection and class loading or using the
sun.*packages that aren't part of the language specification, Java bytecode compiled for ancient Java versions will still work on modern versions.On the other hand back in Java 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 days you frequently had companies install a specific patch level version because their applications worked only with that patch level. That was back when Java was actually popular for some reason.