Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NovemberWhiskey 776 days ago
I promise you that there are major businesses still running on Java 6 code from 2011.
2 comments
oaiey 776 days ago
As a dark matter architect, I can tell you: You do not need to promise. That is reality ;). You let the system run some years successfully, never touch a running system, than you fire fire-everyone involved cycle, then do something important, maybe plan the successor system and but then scrap that. And then budget is tight and the UX needs it more urgent. 2024 it is.
link
amne 776 days ago
I don't even know what Java 6 means. Last time I wrote something in Java it said Java 1.5

  compiled Java class data, version 49.0 (Java 1.5)
link
wizzwizz4 776 days ago
They rebranded Java 1.x as Java SE x, then later just Java x.
link
NovemberWhiskey 776 days ago
No, it's way more confusing than that.

They started with Java 1.0 and 1.1 - then to "Java 2" at version 1.2, so you have Java 2 version 1.2 ... they then stuck with that through the version after 1.4 - but rather than 1.5, that was special as it was Java 2 version 5.0 ... thereafter they're just numbered with the plain number.

link
wizzwizz4 776 days ago
So that's where the 2 in J2ME comes from!
link
hbn 776 days ago
> thereafter they're just numbered with the plain number.

    $ java -version
    java version "1.8.0_391"
    Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_391-b13)
    Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.391-b13, mixed mode)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
link
NovemberWhiskey 776 days ago
Oh, that's the JRE software version - that's completely different from the language version.

For the JRE, I want to say that they stuck with the 1.version.minor numbering (although the last version with a minor other zero was I think the Very Popular And Probably Still In Prod 1.4.2), with updates suffixed with "u" + number through the Java 8 series, but then with 9 they switched to version.minor.update instead.

It's completely incomprehensible; not even Oracle can keep it straight.

link