Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Java 1.5.0 Now Officially Java 5.0

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the these-version-numbers-you-could-leap-to dept.

Java 534

Quantum Jim writes "In a move which out-does Netscape's one-version number skip and Winamp's two-numbers skip, Sun has announced that the upcoming Java2 release will be marketed as version 5.0, skipping three-and-a-half numbers. Can version 6.022E23 be far behind? Thanks to David Flanagan for the heads-up."

cancel ×

534 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Other Famous Version Number Skips (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608768)

Slackware's comes to mind. Any others?

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608793)

I can think of two:
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95: 91.9 version numbers skipped
Windows 98 to Windows 2000: 1902 version numbers skipped

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608801)

In that vein, Sim City 3000 to 4 dropped back 2996.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (-1, Redundant)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608811)

Err...

95, 98, and 2000 are all referrals to years, not version numbers.

Windows 95 = Windows 4.00.950
Windows 98 = Windows 4.10.1998
Windows 2000 = Windows 5.00.2195

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (5, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608872)

Windows XP = Windows written using the buddy system, on daily builds, where code is thrown away at the end of the day if it isn't complete. The entire design is sitting on flash cards taped to a filing cabinet somewhere in a break room at Microsoft.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608906)

Yeah, it was a joke. Hell, while we're being anal, Windows ME came between 98 and 2000, and technically 2000 and XP are descendants of NT, not the 3.1/9x line and IMHO shouldn't really be considered newer versions of the 98 code.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608944)

IMHO shouldn't really be considered newer versions of the 98 code.

I agree about this :-)

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (3, Informative)

x0n (120596) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608978)

The first release of Windows NT, as architected by Dave Cutler of VAX/VMS fame, started at 3.1. The fact that 16bit Windows was at 3.1 at that point is irrelevent. NT was a complete rewrite, hence NT = New Technology. Therefore, it should really have been released as 1.0.

- Oisin

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (4, Interesting)

Shulai (34423) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608837)

Pike programming language (underused but very nice indeed, I prefer Pike to Java) comes from version 0.6 to version 7.0

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (3, Informative)

dosius (230542) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608955)

Sun's done it before too: Solaris "7" is actually 2.7

Moll.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1, Informative)

boaworm (180781) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608996)

Not at all.

The 2.N -series is the SunOS versioning series. 2.7, 2.8, current 2.9 etc.

The 7, 8 and 9 series are Solaris (Which is NOT the same as SunOS).

Solaris is a collection of a lot of stuff, like window managers, lots of software etc.

So, Solaris 9 contains SunOS 2.9, but it's definitely not the same.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 10 years ago | (#9609009)

No, Solaris 2 is SunOS 5.

Moll.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (2, Insightful)

Bloomy (714535) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608860)

Sun kinda did that with Solaris. I was told Sun marketed Solaris 2.5 as Solaris 5 so that its version was higher than NT 4. Each 2.# release has just been called Solaris #. Though uname still reports the 2.# version.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608974)

Technically uname reports the kernel version, there's a difference between the kernel version and the version of the 'Operating Environment.' Its all just splitting hairs really.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1)

datastalker (775227) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608861)

Didn't this happen with Solaris?

Version 2.7 was marketed as 7...
Version 2.8 was marketed as 8...
And now we have Solaris 9, and Solaris 10 is coming soon.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608864)

Didn't MS Word for windows go from 2 to 6?

Psion produced the series 2, series 3 and series 5.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (2, Informative)

jrc313 (168973) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608882)

What about MS Word. It went from version 2 to 6.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (5, Interesting)

Kourino (206616) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608903)

Emacs.

Some time ago, the developers realized that GNU Emacs would probably never change its major version number (which is 1). So, after some point, instead of "GNU Emacs 1.x.y", they started dropping the 1 (since it was constant information and therefore redundant). So the current release of GNU Emacs is actually 1.21.3, but it's called "GNU Emacs 21.3".

This actually appears to be what Sun is doing now. They've done it before with Solaris/SunOS ... twice, in fact.

Re:Other Famous Version Number Skips (1)

treat (84622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9609008)

Slackware was tracking insane version numbering by other distros. Not much difference between skipping numbers outright and increasing the major number for small changes.

Winamp didn't skip version 4 (4, Interesting)

MikeXpop (614167) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608774)

Winamp 5 isn't exactly Winamp version 5. It's more like 3.5. They used the number 5 because they wanted the features of 3 with the speed and ability of 2. 2+3=5. And that's where they got the number.

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (4, Funny)

GnuVince (623231) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608804)

Winamp could go with 8 for the next version and go with fibonacci version numbers

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608901)

Didn't some company actually do that?

And even if they did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608806)

That's only one skip, not two.

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (5, Funny)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608814)

If it has the features of 3 AND the ability of 2 any boolean logitician will tell you that the version number should be 6.

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (2, Informative)

BlueGecko (109058) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608870)

Last time I checked, 3 & 2 == 2 (11 & 10 == 10, if you prefer binary), so if "any boolean logitician [sic] will tell you that the version number should be 6," we are in serious trouble...

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (3, Insightful)

realdpk (116490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608890)

The operator should actually be 'or' in this case, if you're counting the numbers as features. IE something that would contain feature #3 would 11, and something that would contain feature #2 would be 10. 11 | 10 == 11

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608832)

If there's no version 4, they technically did skip it. Even if they want to emphasize that the latest version is a combination of the previous two versions' best features, five still doesn't come after three. Winamp 5 is the fourth major version of Winamp.

Re:Winamp didn't skip version 4 (1)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608899)

Skip the debating, go straight to the source [winamp.com] !

Strongly Typed Container Classes (3, Interesting)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608779)

From briefly viewing some literature about Java 1.5.0 (er, 5.0... W0w!) the feature that excites me most about this is the ability to strongly type container classes, such as one can do in Ada or C++.

Joy.

Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes (4, Interesting)

MarkWPiper (604760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608877)

While this is a nice feature, it is strictly (at least for now), syntactic. The difference is that the expense of casting is still occurring under the hood; you just no longer have to bother typing it out. I believe people are referring to it as 'autoboxing'. Therefore, these strongly typed container classes are not as powerful as C++'s templates.

I read a pretty good interview w/ Eckel and that guy who has done most of the work on C#. The creator of C# was bashing Java's generics, because they aren't giving the full performance possible. And I agree. There is still such a thing as performance critical code, and Java can make it frustratingly hard to write it. Providing featureful, fast data structures would be a good place to start.

I can't find the article I'm referencing, but this sums up Eckel's view. [mindview.net]

Pizza [sourceforge.net] was an alternative implementation of generics for Java. I wish that Sun had chosen this project as their basis for 1.5's generics, rather than GJ (Generic Java). I believe its implementation is much closer to that of C++'s templates. I'd love to use pizza, but it's just not wide-spread enough to justify it in enterprise code.

Re:Strongly Typed Container Classes (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608905)

I guess you mean the Templates.
well there are lots of new features that look like old C features, like the printf
and some new loop syntax.
And the fact that you can now get a type out of a container instead of having to cast to it's Object.
like: int nr = vect.get(1) instead of int nr = ((Integer) vect.get(1)).intValue();

I just hope one thing, that they didn't change too much or deprecated stuff in SWING, 'cause 1.3 -> 1.4 gave enough problems allready, I don't want to have to go that stuff all over again.

95 - 2000 (3, Funny)

alitaa (636041) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608780)

that number skip was quite huge too :p

Re:95 - 2000 (2, Interesting)

basics (702099) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608897)

actually, since 2000 == nt++, its 4 - 2000.

Not really that odd - Emacs did it already (3, Funny)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608782)

Isn't GNU Emacs really at version number 1.21.x.y but they just skip the leading "1." when writing it? Then this would be the same, except that it's just a programming language and not an operating system in desperate need of a good editor.

Re:Not really that odd - Emacs did it already (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608934)

I wish people would stop saying that about Emacs, when there exists a perfectly good vi implementation [uni-miskolc.hu] for it.

not even the first time (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608786)

Sun already jumped 1.2 and called it "2".

Whoa (1, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608788)

Hmm... That must be some kind of record?

Although Microsoft did go from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000, that wasn't really a version jump (Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5) but a change of branding.

Anyone know even greater version inflations?

Re:Whoa (1)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608881)

Windows NT started at 3.0. We all know why, but in theory, could that count as skipping two versions?

Re:Whoa (2, Informative)

jrumney (197329) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608908)

Anyone know even greater version inflations?

Emacs 1.12 to 13.0. Like Java, its not a real version skip, just the initial "1." got dropped because it seemed superfluous if it was never getting updated.

Awesome (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608790)

This will go great with my new copy of Linux 10.0.

Not really that radical (1)

barcodez (580516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608791)

The preceeding 1 has never really meant anything it has been there since Java has been called Java IIRC. So really they have just dropped a superflous digit from the front of their version numbering system. Think of it as a refactoring...

Good to know... (3, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608794)

Good to know that Sun is hard at work, coming up with strange new ways to confuse the end-user.

Seriously though -- I love Java, but Sun needs to pull its head out of its ass before C#, PHP, and Python relegate Java to the scrap heap.

Re:Good to know... (0, Offtopic)

HBI (604924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608852)

It's clear that the parent's acidic droplet of truth deserved to get modded troll.

Well, as long as you buy into the groupthink here. How exactly can there be useful interchange if, whenever something offends the sensibilities of the dumbshit mods, it gets sent down to -1?

"Cheerleading for PC nerds, conversation that doesn't matter"

Re:Good to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608893)

Java version numbers apply to the end user how?

I love Java, but Sun needs to pull its head out of its ass before C#, PHP, and Python relegate Java to the scrap heap.
Yeah, I can see it now, all those Java based document sharing and custom cross network tools replaced by PHP...

Re:Good to know... (1)

Decaff (42676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608946)

but Sun needs to pull its head out of its ass before C#, PHP, and Python relegate Java to the scrap heap.

Why should they? Python hasn't relegated Perl or C to the scrap heap, neither has PHP.

These languages are being used for different purposes. For example, at the moment, C# seems mainly used as a Visual Basic replacement for client-side development under windows.

Thats nothing (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608795)

Microsoft skipped from 98 to 2000!

Slackware Linux (-1, Redundant)

mslinux (570958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608796)

Reminds me of when Slackware Linux jumped from version 4 to version 7.

http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=genera l#0

Don't forget the Slackware jump (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608802)

what was it.. 4.something to like 8.something?!

Versioning is a joke (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608803)

With how everyone has been treating them, versioning is pretty much worthless, beyond identifying what you have..

None is consistent, there is no 'standard' and its ( as is apparent by the story, and many in the past ) all arbitrary...

Re:Versioning is a joke (1, Insightful)

supmylO (773375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608827)

As long as you can differentiate between different versions I don't see what the problem is. It's not like they went backwards or anything.

Thank Godness (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608809)

Right now Sun markets Java as Java2, but all the developer's documentation refers to the internal version number 1.4 (soon to be 1.5). Hopefully they will grow a brain and drop this scheme and just stick to the one version from now on because it confuses everybody the first time they come accross it.

Re:Thank Godness (1)

Decaff (42676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608964)

Hopefully they will grow a brain and drop this scheme and just stick to the one version from now on

This is what they have done. Its Java version 5.0, internal version number 5.0.

Where does the 2 come into this? (2, Informative)

nagora (177841) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608810)

As someone who is sitting here with "Learning Java" on the desk, I was already wondering why Java2 was called 1.4.x.

TWW

Re:Where does the 2 come into this? (4, Interesting)

barcodez (580516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608869)

When Java SDK went from 1.1.x to 1.2.0 they decided that they had made lots of big changes (IIRC Swing and Collection.. possibly Inner classes *shrug*) so they called it Java 2. However when they went from 1.2 to 1.3 they hadn't made too many major changes so they didn't bother and the same for 1.4. There are lot's of changes in 1.5 so I guess they thought they should give it a new number. However Java 2 version 5 is stupid as is J2SE 5 and J2EE 5 - all very confusing for everyone.

Re:Where does the 2 come into this? (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608927)

Java 2 started with 1.2. They should have stuck with that naming scheme, as its confusing that Java 1.2 is also known as Java 2, and 1.5 is also known as Java 5, but 1.3 and 1.4 are still Java 2.

they must have Jedi on the payroll (5, Funny)

eidechse (472174) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608812)

"This is the version you're looking for."
[waves hand Alec Guinness style]

Systems already in place. (3, Funny)

ameoba (173803) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608815)

They should've just adopted an existing versioning system such as the one GNU Emacs uses and called it Java 15.0 to avoid creating any unnecessary confusion.

off-by-3 error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608816)

I thought Java was brilliant enough to cope with such errors. Duh.

For non-physics people: (5, Informative)

Tar-Palantir (590548) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608819)

6.022E23 is Avogadro's number, the number of atoms in a mole of an element.

Re:For non-physics people: (1, Informative)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608875)

That would be non-chemistry people, IMHO.

Re: For non-physics people: (1)

Quantum Jim (610382) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608884)

Yes, but non-scientists probably think that a mole is just a furry animal. :-)

For the confused: 6.022E23 represents the number of molecules in a large container of any gas (specifically a 22.4L gas can). That's why Avogadro's number is important.

Re:For non-physics people: (1)

manabadman (589984) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608976)

Its actually the numer of particles per mole [wikipedia.org] (atoms, molecules, ions etc). Depends on what composes what you are talking about. For example, there are 6.022E23 molecules of water in a mole of water whilst there there are 3 x 6.022E23 atoms in a mole of water, since each water molecule has 3 atoms (h20 - 2 hydrgen and 1 oxygen)

Realistically, I'd call it 3.0 (2, Insightful)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608821)

I'd settle for 3.0 if they had picked that. Java 1.2 would be 2.0 (inner classes, collections, other major additions).

this is why "java 2" was such a dumb idea (4, Insightful)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608824)

it was confusing enough when java 1.2 was marketed as "java 2," and we subsequently saw java 2 1.3 and java 2 1.4. But java 2 5.0? That's just rediculous. :)

Re:this is why "java 2" was such a dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608855)

Maybe they mean Java 5 1.5

Re:this is why "java 2" was such a dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608863)

Java 25.0? This is really getting confusing. :)

Re:this is why "java 2" was such a dumb idea (1)

Bricklets (703061) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608878)

java 1.2 was marketed as "java 2," and we subsequently saw java 2 1.3 and java 2 1.4. But java 2 5.0?

it'll probably be Java5 1.5. however, they may have thought of exactly what you thought of and decided to dump the whole dual versioning system and jump from 1.4 to 5.0.

Embarrassing and Harmful (4, Insightful)

fastdecade (179638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608831)

Anyone who says this is irrelevant, we should focus on the technology etc, has failed to understand that software is about more than technical details.

Managers don't understand the details - they don't bother to learn that 5.0 is really 1.5, and they make decisions based on their high level views.

Sun has hurt Java's name, and let its developers down, with this absurd naming move, a repeat of the shambolic schizophrenic 1.2/2.0 business years ago.

So now we have Java 2 Version 5????? Employers will want to know why developers haven't done any version 3 and version 4. And it will certainly confuse the crap out of them.

Java has a good name for professionalism, but whoever came up with this ought to hang their head in shame.

Re:Embarrassing and Harmful (1)

challahc (745267) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608951)

How is this going to confuse any one?

developer: I wrote this in Java version 5 manager: 5!!! what happened to 3 and 4 developer: They skipped those numbers. manager: oh, ok then good job have a raise.

Not that this example is completely realistic but is it really that hard to understand?
Any manager that is confused by this probobly comes to work with no pants on sometimes.

actually previewed this time (1)

challahc (745267) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608970)

How is this going to confuse any one?

developer: I wrote this in Java version 5
manager: 5!!! what happened to 3 and 4
developer: They skipped those numbers.
manager: oh, ok then good job have a raise.

Not that this example is completely realistic but is it really that hard to understand?

Any manager that is confused by this probobly comes to work with no pants on sometimes.

Re:Embarrassing and Harmful (1)

StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608994)

Reminds me of the ad I saw back in '96/97: "Wanted: Java Swing Developers. 5 Years Minimum Experience".

Employers are smart enough to know better. Its the HR peeps that don't get enough information to do their jobs right.

OTOH, I think that it is about time Java dropped the '1'; more information would have been nice, but lets face it: There are more changes in the Java language in each incremental release (e.g. 1.3 -> 1.4) than in 99.9% of all software out there. Hell, JBuilder gets a new full version number every time they fix a f*ing bug.

Imagine the alternate side: How do you explain to a somewhat sophisticated client that you want to upgrade their code to use 1.5.0, from 1.4.2? To the client it looks like such a minor thing, because she is used to upgrading every full version number, perhaps even two version numbers. Just sophisticated enough to cause trouble...

Re:Embarrassing and Harmful (0)

Decaff (42676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608998)

Managers don't understand the details - they don't bother to learn that 5.0 is really 1.5, and they make decisions based on their high level views.

Its not really 1.5. Its Java 5.0, J2SE 5.0. Its not like 'Java 2, J2SE version 1.2, 1.3, 1.4..'.

Sun has hurt Java's name, and let its developers down, with this absurd naming move, a repeat of the shambolic schizophrenic 1.2/2.0 business years ago.

I don't hear of any mass movement away from Java because of the version number! Its not schizophrenic - its 5.0 throughout.

So now we have Java 2 Version 5????? Employers will want to know why developers haven't done any version 3 and version 4. And it will certainly confuse the crap out of them.

No, its not Java 2 version 5. Its Java 5. The split between the JDK/SDK number and the Java version number is no longer present.

Re:Embarrassing and Harmful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9609002)

Now all those idiots in HR who write up job ads for the classifieds will require not just 15 years of Java experience, but experience in Java 2 all the way through to 5!

This is the marketing collective (-1, Offtopic)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608845)

Prepare to be marketed. We will add your biological and technological distinctives to our ad campaign. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

Kjella, version 1979.0

Re:This is the marketing collective (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9609001)

Please shut the fuck up.

*sigh* I hate marketing (5, Insightful)

Croaker (10633) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608857)

God, I hate marketing. Why do you have to have yet another number attached to a product? I could never figure what the hell Sun was talking about when they would go off on "Java 2", but then sprinkle in "1.4" or "1.5" when talking about the JDK. or JRE.

Jesus. Just give me a version number so I can track what it's compatible with, and what features it has. If you're bumping up your version number for a product, bump them for all related ones as well, in the same increment. Don't make me try to figure out what version number of the language is supported by which version number of the developer's kit for god's sake. Is it so damn hard?

I thought marketing was suppose to create clarity in the minds of the potential customer. Screwing around with numbering schemes isn't the way to do that. I don't care what your internal taxonomies are. Just label the thing, and stick with it.

I also take it that Sun's marketing/engineering is stealing their "internal" project naming protocols from Apple?

What world do YOU live in? (5, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608979)

What world do YOU live in? It sounds like a pretty nice place. Where I live, marketing is intended to confuse and bewilder the customer so that they pay for things that they neither want nor need.

6.022E23? (1)

dupper (470576) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608858)

How do you know? Does the company have a mole in it? /Obvious

Par for the course with Sun (4, Insightful)

notsoclever (748131) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608865)

Remember when they released Solaris 2.7 as Solaris 7 instead? Nothing new here.

Re:Par for the course with Sun (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608914)

Nope that was SunOS 2.7 as Solaris 7, basically a rebranding along the lines of Windows2000.

Re:Bread cocks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608958)

No, it was SunOS 5.7 = Solaris 2.7 = Solaris 7 actually. Both a rebranding and a version jump. Remember that SunOS 5.6 = Solaris 2.6.

In other news... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608892)

Marathon once changed its name to Snickers. Opal Fruits became Starburst. The Splicer sank without trace. What happened to Spangles?

Why not try out different ways of counting (1)

polemistes (739905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608894)

When I have made my revolutionary combined Video Editor / Calculator / 'Turn your computer into a washing machine' Program, I start with e.g. version 2^364289-2^182145+1, and then search for nice prime numbers downwards, until I reach 1, and then I'll have to learn something about complex numbers, I guess, or maybe stop developing the program.

versions of tomorrow (2, Interesting)

MrLint (519792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608923)

Well there has been some speculation for the past several years what will happen when apple set to MacOS 10.9 (X.9)?

Will it be 11? XI?

Confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608924)

At the JavaOne conference after releasing the Beta 2 version of the JDK, Sun announced that java 1.5 would be Java 5, which is much like Java 1.2 (that was Java 2), but not like Java 1.3 or 1.4, which were merely Java 2 1.3 and Java 2 1.4, respectively.

My head hurts.

Oracle (2, Informative)

snowtigger (204757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608931)

I believe Oracle started by releasing version 2.0

"to make it sound like it had improvements from the first version"

Astronomical version numbers (1)

Flexagon (740643) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608932)

Can version 6.022E23 be far behind?

Somebody rounded down instead of nearest.

As a Java developer, I'm all for it (3, Interesting)

damm0 (14229) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608936)

Hey, if it works as a marketing ploy and increases the number of people who want my skills, I'm all for it.

Now it's obvious... (5, Funny)

omicronish (750174) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608945)

that Java is better than C#/.NET: 5.0 > 2.0. I was so confused as to which I should choose. Thanks Sun for helping!

Java 5.0 (1)

p0rnking (255997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608947)

Well, if you's RTFA, the very first line says "SUN INTRODUCES MOST SIGNIFICANT AND ADVANCED JAVA PLATFORM RELEASE IN FIVE YEARS", so ths isn't as if they picked out a random number to call the next version.

Personally though, I disagree with this type of "marketting". Version numbers should reflect the changes that are made in each release

6.022E23 ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608949)

Hey wait, that's my shoe size!

The story behind Java2 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608952)

As Sun was preparing to roll out JDK 1.2 the marketing department thought the name lacked enough flash considering all the new features. They had picked a new name, "Java 2000", and were ready to run with it when Microsoft annouced that NT 5.0 would be known as Windows 2000. I don't know if Microsoft always intended to call NT 5.0 Windows 2000, or if it was a case of them one upping Sun. Either way, the Sun marketing department was caught flat footed and needed to come up with a new name fast. That's why we have Java2.

As far as changing the name of 1.5 to 5.0, I think it makes a lot of sense. The original reason for sticking with 1.X was that a full version jump would indicate incompatibility between versions. That's never going to happen now. Incompatibility would be the death of Java, so the time is right to start using full version numbers for major releases. 1.5->5.0 shouldn't be that hard to wrap you head around.

Obligatory Monty Python Reference (1)

sirGullible (750869) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608954)

It's almost as bad as this number skip:

One!... Two!... Five!

Java numbering... (4, Insightful)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608959)

Why not calling it just Java 2004???

After all, we are all talking about vintages aren't we?

More seriously, Sun should just drop the Java 2/5 numbering and just use the year that is launched as the "brand"... and keep a "internal" version number for identification purposes...

That would keep the market droids happy and the programmers would have both an inteligent numbering and a discreet numbering to work with...

at least there not doing what borland did! (1, Offtopic)

XMichael (563651) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608968)

At least there still calling it Java, Borland comes to mind, and makes me laugh.

Pascal -> Delphi -> Kylix

Perhaps had they just kept right on calling it Pascal, and incremented versions they would have some "brand awareness" for that language.
I guess the marketing department decided that a IDE justified a language name change. hehe

Wireless Cameras [completecctv.com]

This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9608985)

Just as 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 before it, 1.5 (aka 5.0) is a significant advancement over preceding versions. It deserves it's new "5.0" identity, just as the previous versions would have been better served by having dropped the "1." syntax.

In other news... (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608997)

...NVIDIA has released a new set of Detonator drivers version 8701012.45231256

java -version (3, Insightful)

mpn14tech (716482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9608999)

The question is what will java -version or System.getProperty("java.version") show. This could be a big deal for installers that expect a specific version format string. A similar case is in Windows 2000 the api version returns 5.0 and Windows XP returns 5.1

Linus makes announcement (5, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9609013)

In other news:

Linus Torvald announced today that the next version of the Linux kernel will be released a "Linux Kernel Version 11". Said Torvald, "Thats one more than Mac's OS, and several more than Microsoft, so people will know its better."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>