[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-nashorn-dev
Subject:    Re: Nashorn deprecation
From:       mark.reinhold () oracle ! com
Date:       2018-07-19 23:29:25
Message-ID: 20180719162925.786128514 () eggemoggin ! niobe ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

2018/7/3 16:19:48 -0700, Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com>:
> I was going to start another thread, but I thought it made sense to
> reply here.
> 
> I see the justification for deprecating Nashorn is given as "it's too
> hard to maintain". I'd like to understand if that's the real
> justification or if the real truth is that the Truffle JS impl is
> going to be preferred by Oracle going forward.

Yes, that's the real justification.  Jim would've made this proposal
even if Truffle JS and Graal didn't exist.

The simple fact is that it takes effort to maintain a body of code as
complex as Nashorn.  Those who currently maintain Nashorn are these days
working on even newer features, so they're trying to reduce the amount
of time that they spend maintaining Nashorn.

> So what's the actual reason for deprecating Nashorn? Are we
> deprecating having a standard JS shipped with OpenJDK, or are we just
> picking a winner? Are we sure it's the right winner?

This decision is not about "picking a winner."  It's about focusing
effort.  As I've written previously, if a set of credible developers
expresses a clear desire to maintain Nashorn after JDK 11 then all of us
who work on the JDK will find a way to make that happen.  Absent that,
then at some point in the future there will no longer be a JS engine in
the JDK.

- Mark
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]