Idea logo

The IntelliJ IDEA Blog

The Capable & Ergonomic Java IDE by JetBrains


Java Annotated Monthly – February 2017

New year, new style?  This month we’re experimenting with a simpler format for JAM, so you can see at a glance the real titles of the articles being linked to.  The upside is more links! More news! And you can see all the topics at a glance.  The downside? Less witty banter from yours truly.  Let us know in the comments whether you prefer the “usual” format or the new.  As always, we will cover what’s new in the Java world and throw in other bits and pieces that seem interesting for developers.



Beyond Java 9

Java 9



Libraries and Frameworks

Practices, Design & Architecture

And finally…

A quick summary of IntelliJ IDEA (and other JetBrains) news you may have missed:


Complete this form and get Java Annotated Monthly delivered fresh to your email.

Comments below can no longer be edited.

17 Responses to Java Annotated Monthly – February 2017

  1. Sune Marcher says:

    February 8, 2017

    The old format was useful becaused it was annotated. The new format isn’t annotated, and is basically a useless collection of links – there’s always something to do or read when you’re a developer, so quality is way more important than quantity.

    The annotated format gave a quick indication of whether a link was worth checking out. Without that – and with a larger amount of links – I’ll probably stop following the JAM.

    • Trisha Gee says:

      February 8, 2017

      Thanks for the feedback. It’s useful to know that the original article name isn’t enough to determine if the link is worth following – one of the criticisms of the old format was that adding links to “arbitrary” words in the blurb didn’t give people enough context about whether the link was worth checking out.

      • Sune Marcher says:

        February 8, 2017

        There’s definitely a point with regards to the “link to arbitrary word” format not being optimal – and I don’t see “links are the title of the page” as a bad thing. But a few sentences per link and some per-group prose binding it all together (and perhaps a dash of witty banter) is what makes all the difference if you want JAM to be a great resource.

  2. Nicolai Parlog says:

    February 8, 2017

    I like the list for being much easier to see what you recommend and whether that might interest me. On the other hand I do muss the banter. 🙂 Maybe you can write a short editorial summarizing current developments.

    Small nit: If content gets syndicated (like here, here, or here), I’d consider it a nice gesture to link to original instead of the syndicated version.

    • Trisha Gee says:

      February 8, 2017

      Thanks for the feedback Nicolai!

      I wanted to link to the originals, but DZone don’t make it easy! I remembered there being a link at the top of the page to see the original version, which is no longer there, so I assumed there wasn’t a link at all. I’ve now located it! I’ll post to the originals in future.

      • Nicolai Parlog says:

        February 8, 2017

        Yeah, they hide it pretty well. 😉

  3. Bryant Adams says:

    February 8, 2017

    I too miss the annotations. When I started reading, I thought the only change was that there was a new “Table of Contents” to quick link to the annotated notes, but then when I followed links they skipped straight past the “witty banter”. Very sadness!

    I’ve no objection to a good table of contents – that could make a nice enhancement, IMHO – but the /content/ is the reason I pay attention to the JAM.

  4. Randy Sugianto says:

    February 9, 2017

    I have been always thinking that “Java Annotated Monthly” is a short article from the great IDE makers on how they perceive developments in Java. The links are just additional info, really. The paragraphs and the story are much more interesting.

    For links, there is and other websites.

    • Andrey Cheptsov says:

      February 9, 2017

      This is exactly our goal–to understand which format works better. Thanks for your feedback. We will consider this.

  5. Sebastian says:

    February 9, 2017

    Too many links. I would prefer you focus on not more than 2-3 per category.

  6. Milan says:

    February 9, 2017

    Maybe both approaches can be merged. Keep the article the old way (this was definitely the added value, without it JAM is missing the “annotated”) and provide all the links with original title at the end exactly as you did this month (as it is easier

    Another option is to keep list of links and provide a comment what is inside and why you feel it is interesting. Examples: and

  7. John says:

    February 11, 2017

    Personally, I find this format much better than the old one. For me, the links are the most interesting part of these articles and I always had a hard time finding them in the wall of text.

  8. Zack Macomber says:

    February 17, 2017

    I like the old format much more. You all do a nice job summarizing the Java world with your thoughts and providing links with context. A whole bunch of links splashed on the screen is a bit overwhelming and not very useful. I’ve enjoyed Trisha’s JAMs in the past and missed her post this month…

  9. Tim says:

    February 19, 2017

    I also prefer the old format more. It provided more context and I appreciated the writing. I vote for a rollback!

  10. David says:

    February 19, 2017

    I believe the old format was better. In the above format I actually found the titles to be not compelling enough to actually go and visit the linked pages. In the previous format, reading the annotations (the author’s comments) lead me to visit more links, probably because of the comments. My 2 cents! As always this is still fine work, keep it up!

  11. Sahil V says:

    February 25, 2017

    I prefer the old format because it gave me a summary of the Java/technology landscape. This month’s post is just a list of links.

  12. Eduard Wirch says:

    March 1, 2017

    Great format. I love the overview. But I miss a brief content description.

Discover more