Unless CPU instructions become widespread that allow to process 128 bits in one step, then yes. Java will have the same limitations as any other language. Other languages simply don't make this explicit.
I don’t understand this comment - the .NET CLR supports arbitrarily large value types. Are you referring to something like “atomic flattening of those types” instead? Because the CLR doesn’t guarantee that, and therefore supports flattening.
Any project depending on Integer identity had years of warning that this change would come. Also given implicit primitive conversions and object pooling Integer isn't exaclty a prime candidate for object identity to begin with.
Java has a mechanism for Integer and Long objects caching using something that already looks like value object, cached objects can be compared using ==. hashCode of Integer already returns int, the boxed int value. Not much of value is lost.
Seems like a horrible way to work. Why could this not have landed as a large amount of smaller PRs in a more incremental fashion, maybe Java users could have gotten some value out of it earlier.
Out of all factors this certainly isn't it. If anything, more projects could learn from the way Valhalla was handled.
It started out as a highly invasive, highly disruptive and highly experimental branch that eventually turned into a beautiful specification that put semantics and performance payoff first and syntax seconds.
The lack of value types is the biggest impediment to certain types of performance. I am really looking forward to this evolution of the language.