HN Explorer

12 comments

[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] thread
ExpiredLink
Why should they?
kmontrose
It's interesting, as they're a core language feature that isn't in the java.lang package.

Obviously it's not harming anything that they're not.

wunderland
I don't understand. Didn't his test program output say that the superclass of the array class was java.lang.Object? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. Doesn't that mean that arrays are in java.lang?
kmontrose
If you go high enough up the inheritance tree everything goes back to java.lang.Object, so no.

If java arrays were something completely distinct from objects (like the primitive types are/were) that would have been interesting, which is what I was checking the super class for there.

joejohnson
What does this mean?

  The first stable version was the JDK 1.0.2. is called Java 1
kmontrose
That's straight out of wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history#JDK_1.0_.2...

Java version naming is a bit confusing, especially retrospectively.

Starting with the release of JDK 1.2 (which was the third release, after 1.0.2 and 1.1) Sun started referring to everything as Java 2 (J2SE, J2EE, etc.). Presumably this means that there were two releases of Java 1, JDKs 1.0.2 and 1.1.

After JDK 1.4 (still Java 2) was Java 5.0, after that was Java 6 which dropped the Java 2 nomenclature (now different versions are just JSE, JEE, and so on).

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
joejohnson
Oh, thank you. I think it was the grammar error which threw me: The first stable version was the JDK 1.0.2. which is called Java 1