These are great options. If you don't want to pay up to Oracle. Just use one of the OpenJDK distributions. Java is still free and the JVM is still an amazing piece of tech.
Oracle has also demonstrated in court that the Java API is their intellectual property, and that they are willing to go after people for reimplementing them. OpenJDK might be blessed, but I'd still be afraid of having anything to do with their intellectual property. That's also one of the primary reasons I'm not very excited about ZFS.
If you use OpenJDK you get an implicit patent grant to run OpenJDK (as it's licensed under the GPL).
If you use any other non-OpenJDK runtime you might still violate some of Oracle's patents, but you don't get any patent grant.
So if you're concerned about patents then using OpenJDK (instead of not using it) would actually be the safer way to go.
Furthermore, OpenJDK is licensed under the GPL. Even if Oracle stopped contributing to OpenJDK the GPL license would ensure that OpenJDK and all derivative works can still be freely distributed and are still subject to Oracle's original implicit patent grant.
I don't see how that's relevant? I wasn't aware of any aggression towards Google, until Oracle suddenly decided to aggress. The fact that Oracle hasn't been aggressive towards non-Oracle OpenJDK distributions in the past doesn't mean they won't be aggressive in the future.
I can probably agree that Oracle is relatively unlikely to start coming after people for patent infringement related to using OpenJDK or forks thereof, when OpenJDK is licensed under a license with a patent grant. My biggest concern is just that Oracle seems like a thoroughly evil and unpredictable company, and I wouldn't like to use technology they own and which uses patents they own. I wouldn't have imagined that Oracle would ever come after people for re-implementing their API; I can't imagine what Oracle will do in the future, but I won't build a business or institution around the assumption that they will do nothing. It's not like there aren't a plethora of other solutions for anything developed by Oracle, most of which are better than Oracle's alternatives.
I think that even if it made sense to assign virtue judgments to corporations, it would be a huge stretch to claim that Oracle is any more evil than other companies of similar size, like Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Apple, but as I work for Oracle, I'm obviously biased.
It’s hard to say that when we’re still clamouring for generics without type-erasure. It’s been over 14 years since the CLR had it and it’s definitely holding back the Java ecosystem in my opinion.
But in response to GP, type erasure sucks and makes a lot of things harder.
No, it is not. Most JVM languages (except Ceylon, I think) choose to erase generics, as that's the right thing to do if you want good polyglot interop.
On the other hand with my Java hat on, I look enviously to proper unsigned types, value types, explicit SIMD, and the language support for low level coding optimizations.
Still looking forward for Valhalla and Panama to arrive.
I wonder if C++ compilers "collapse" things like `vector<Foo⋆>` and `vector<Bar⋆>` (or even `vector<size_t>`) if they can figure out that all of their respective methods end up generating the same machine code... Maybe not?
(Stars because I can't seem to escape asterisks properly...)
[0] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20050322-00/?p=...
Edited to add link.
I wonder what the standard says about it, what the linker can/could typically prove is "safe", and what performance/size changes are seen in practice.
The talk Diet Templates[1] has some suggestions for how to reduce template bloat.
[0] https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub36912
[1] https://accu.org/content/conf2011/Jonathan-Wakely-diet-templ...
Edited to add the second paragraph.