JEP 193: Enhanced Volatiles

Jeroen Frijters jeroen at
Wed Mar 5 16:55:54 UTC 2014

Brian Goetz wrote:
> I'm all for unintrusive.  Though note that the intrusiveness metric on
> language features I(f) is not uniform across observers :)

Indeed :-)

> > Here's my straw man
> > proposal:
> >
> > Add an annotation that can be placed on native methods to synthesize
> > atomic accessor methods.
> I suspect you were expecting this response: we don't add language
> semantics through annotations.

Technically, we're not adding language semantics. The JVM is the one interpreting the annotations. BTW, as I mentioned in another post in this thread, I specifically asked about this at the JVM Language Summit (in 2012 IIRC) and the answer was (by Alex IIRC) that there is no such rule.

> I'm not trying to frustrate you; evolving a language with millions of
> users is really, really hard.  And one of the things that makes it hard
> is recognizing our intrinsic conflicts of interest between "what good
> will this do me" and "what harm will it do others."

I understand, that's why I want to avoid adding language support for this niche/specialist feature.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list