Skip to main content

What part of the Java version numbering convention bugs you the most?

Having to spell out "Java" in "Java SE" starting with 6.0
6% (34 votes)
Not having had one convention and sticking with it
64% (353 votes)
I don't have a problem with the numbering scheme
30% (166 votes)
Total votes: 553

Comments

-b03 in the version number?

why is that all versions show build 3. is it that 3rd time the charm! It almost seems as if the version is beta.

missing option

There's a missing option before "not bothered": "All of the above!"

Sane names

Can we not retrofit some sane names ? Java 2 Standard Edition 1.1 becomes Java 1 Java 2 Standard Edition 1.2 becomes Java 2 ... Java 2 Standard Edition 5.0 becomes Java 5 etc. I have no idea what the Sun marketing fucktoids are/were thinking, but I don't think they've done the Java platform any favours...

:)

And then there are the nucknames to top it all off, for example Tiger for Java 5. The good thing is that you really only need to know the different ways of saying the most current realease of Java, and which names refer to the same thing. For example: Java 5 Tiger J2SE 1.5 etc.

1,2,3,4,5,6...

I think it should be: java 1 java 2 java 3 java 4 java 5 java 6 and so on... It would be a lot better. Why not?

Java 5 is Java 2?

Shouldn't 'Having to spell out "Java" in "Java SE" starting with 6.0', read 'Having to spell out "Java" in "Java SE" starting with 6'?

Recently I've seen "Java 5" written all over the place, even on dev.java.net. Shouldn't that be J2SE 5.0 or Java 2 version 5.0, or something? Unless it's Java EE 5. I'm confused now. Have I got the spaces right?

Java 2

The problems started when Sun released JDK 1.2 but marketted it as "Java 2". Many people were already confused at that point: "where do I get Java 2? I can only find 1.2" Therefore they couldn't call Tiger JDK 2.0, either, because everyone would have confused it with Java 2.

Java names and versioning

why not making another cut and call the Java Standard Edition Runtime Environment just 'Java' along with a version number such as in 'Java 5'. Everything else could be called 'extension', such as in Development Extension (for the SDK) Enterprise Extension (for J2EE) Mail Extension (Java Mail) Help Extension (JavaHelp) etc. . . This way requirements could be addressed much easier such as in 'requires Java 5 with the following Extensions: Enterprise, Help, etc...' ???

The versioning confuses people

just imagine the following: You are new to Java and go into a bookstore to get some learning material. There you will find books which refer on their cover and back pages to things like: + Java 2 + Java 1.4 + Java 5 + Java 1.5 + J2SE 5 + JDK 1.5 and so on. How bad can things get? People at Sun just don't seem to realize how confusing this really is. Especially for beginners! But even the authors or publishers seem to be confused when you look at these titles... Regards, Christian

"Java 2 Standard Edition 5.0 SDK 1.5.0"

'Nuff said

Choice 6 - NO 5.1 !!!

The thing that bugs me the most is going from 5.0 to 6.0, without evena 5.1. Is 6.0 really a major update? Even so, lots of fixes can be put into 5.0 and be made 5.1. The real issue is that a lot of IT folks just won't use a ".0" release no matter how stable Java releases are. They will wait for 5.1, and then 6.1, none of which will ever come, as far as I understand from what was said at JavaOne.

"Java 5" is really 1.5

The marketing people need to stay out of version numbering. Anybody dumb enough to be swayed by a higher version number is incapable of writing code or running a successful business, so why bother trying to appeal to them?

Internal inconsistencies

The marketing says 5.0 but the docs and filenames say 1.5 Sun is really bad in following through with corporate decisions; I'm sure if you look hard enough you will still find old-style java logos, for example.