Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java 8 Lambda binary snapshot Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:23:20 -0800 Organization: Canadian Mind Products Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <4ebeee82$0$292$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: Roedy Green NNTP-Posting-Host: Z2l1DcCELS0rATq8NqV4Sw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9919 On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:14:53 -0800, markspace <-@.> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Hmm, I guess I was thinking of "Java 8 is not backwards compatible with >Java 7 JVM," although there may be subtleties to that term that I'm not >understanding. There are two kinds of compatibility. Old programs continue to run on new hardware or JVMs. Is that Forward or Backward compatibility? I have heard people use both terms. The other is new programs written carefully with new tools to avoid using new features will run on old hardware and JVMs. Is that Forward or Backward compatibility? or something else? IBM salesmen loved to talk about upward and downward compatibility. The IBM mainframers were very serious about ensuring even extremely old code would continue to run, even if it took multiple layers of emulation. 1410 emulation was still running in the 1990s, long after 1410 boxes lived only in museums. Again, I am not sure what they meant by the terms. I think they used them synonyms for "good" and "reliable". If there is a consensus, I will do a entry in the glossary on the matter. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com I can't come to bed just yet. Somebody is wrong on the Internet.