Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java 8 Lambda binary snapshot Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 05:08:09 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3877620.1202.1321189689149.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prap37> References: <4ebeee82$0$292$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1321189689 4899 127.0.0.1 (13 Nov 2011 13:08:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:08:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9906 markspace wrote: > Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: >=20 >> Requiring a Java 7 java to execute Java 8 javac output is forward >> compatible not backward compatible. >=20 > Hmm, I guess I was thinking of "Java 8 is not backwards compatible with= =20 > Java 7 JVM," although there may be subtleties to that term that I'm not= =20 > understanding. Code emitted by a Java 5 compiler will not run on a Java 1.4 JVM (unless yo= u specify "-target" and "-bootclasspath", and not always then). Likewise w= ith Java 6 class files trying to run in a Java 5 JVM. Java 1.2 wouldn't ru= n on a 1.1 JVM. It has always been thus. >> And AFAIK then Java has never promised or intended being >> forward compatible. Whatever you call it, the code emitted by the more advance compiler natural= ly cannot guarantee to run on the older platform. > My main goal was to point out to folks here who may try that snapshot=20 > that "it's not all there yet" so they didn't spend too much time=20 > spinning their wheels if they found something that didn't run. Likely,= =20 > it's the JDK that probably isn't 100% yet, not the coder. Even if the JDK were "100%", it would still need a compatible JVM to run it= . Just like always. --=20 Lew