Strange.... should the title be “You can’t afford NOT to run Java 8”?
I didnt read the second half because I couldnt make sense of the negative headline with the positive text.
It wasn't though... not sure why you got that impression? (I do think though that the text could use a few edits for easier reading - maybe it just isn't easy to understand when skimming)
Merely making assessments of an article after only reading a fraction of it (or the title!) is bad enough, but spreading those misunderstandings to other people is even worse - not only are you harming their understanding, but you're also misrepresenting the author's points.
In addition, nowhere near "half" of the article is praising Java 8 - the very first paragraph says "This is one of the reasons why Java 8, almost 7 years after its first release, is still widely used.", which is barely "praise", and then the rest (>80%) recommends that you not use it.
In other words the title should be read as "[Java 11/14/etc is so good that] you can't afford to run [i.e., stay on] Java 8"
I agree that the title was a poor choice though.
I promise to be more careful when picking up the title next time. I hope that the article's content somehow compensated that ;)
It seems java was relatively stable from 2006 to 2016, where there where three versions. But instead of slowing down, there have been 8 since then. They`re on v16 now?!
...I doubt I`ll ever code in java again.
Still Java 8 for the most part. Java 11 is actually allowed, but not many people care including me. Existing Scala code is getting thrown away and rewritten back into Java.
JDK is different story tho. I think devops are actively experimenting to put 11 into base image by default, but startup time different is funny argument. 1 second, really? By the time your usual spring boot service comes up and connects to all topics and caches and what not it's good part of a minute anyway.
Is it really _confusing_? The idea that a product might change release cadence probably should not be confusing.