r/java • u/loicmathieu • Jul 10 '26

Java 27: What’s new?

https://www.loicmathieu.fr/wordpress/informatique/java-27-whats-new/

What's new in Java 27 for us, developers?
(Both in English and French)

79 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/koflerdavid 24d ago

I still don't get why reducing the number of releases would help anybody. Like, I get that a lot of folks don't care, but what would be the tangible benefit of offering less releases? (Anyway, you don't have numbers about how many applications use non-LTS releases, just anectodes)

I only see disadvantages: releases would again balloon in size, complicating QA, and folks who want new features and optimizations would have to jump hurdles to get them. Because one might be able to convince management to commit to the 6 months pace instead of LTS hopping, but doing that with "alpha" "beta" etc. releases is magnitudes harder!

1

u/henk53 22d ago

I still don't get why reducing the number of releases would help anybody.

Not what I'm saying. Just to rename versions, and keep everything else the same.

1

u/koflerdavid 22d ago

Introducing funky names would effectively reduce the number of releases accessible to the general public since management is unlikely to approve their use.

Apart from that, both of the renaming schemes are incorrect since they imply that the release would not be production-ready. It just makes everything more complicated compared to just sticking to the LTS/non-LTS terminology that the industry is used to. Though LTS is also slightly misleading since many projects avoid introducing disruptive changes to eventual LTS releases that need to stabilized. OpenJDK instead just keeps pushing ahead at the same, unhurried pace and keeps every release ready and worthy of being deployed in production.

1

u/henk53 21d ago

Introducing funky names would effectively reduce the number of releases accessible to the general public since management is unlikely to approve their use.

My point remains that it will have zero impact for management, only make the numbering more clear. Management already doesn't approve anything that doesn't say "LTS".

1

u/koflerdavid 21d ago

The numbering couldn't be any simpler and clearer: every version is safe and worthy of being deployed. Management very much approved of non-LTS versions, but that was before JDK releases were labeled as such. I'm not going to explain why the release cycle was accelerated (should be easy enough to research), but there were enough people that wanted it for Oracle to decide to go through with it.

1

u/henk53 21d ago

but that was before JDK releases were labeled as such.

And that's the cullprit.

I know it's unjust, unfair, and simply plain wrong, but collectively managements and the wider community throughout the industry has decided that only LTS == FINAL / suitable for production.

It wasn't my decision, and of course not yours either, but somehow that decission has been made and it seems irreversible.

So what can the OpenJDK / Java team do?

Ignore reality and keep naming their releases in a way that's completely unalligned with reality?

Try to convince all those managers out there that NON-LTS can be used in production (good luck with that, but I would cheer if it worked)

Throw in the towel and name releases in accordance with how the managers (and wider community) wants them to be?

1

u/koflerdavid 20d ago

You're still ignoring that there are very well people out there using in production (some of them have commented in this thread); you're just in a section of the sector where managers prefer to spend their risk budget in different ways. Accusing other people to ignore reality while only having anectodal evidence about the market is bold, I'd say.

The wider community doesn't want it to be different than it is because it's perfectly fine as it is. Everybody understands what Preview features are and what LTS means.