Recently I've been looking more closely at the various (count them, four of them) proposals for adding new features into the Java language, the "BGGA", "FCM", "CICE" and "JCA" proposals. All of them are interesting and have their merits. A few other proposals for Java 7 have emerged as well, such as extension methods, enhancements to switch, the so-called "multi-catch" enhancement to exceptions, properties, better null support, and some syntax to support lists and maps natively. All of them intriguing ideas, and highly subject to reasonable debate among reasonable people. My concern lies in a different direction.

Who herds this bunch of cats?

This isn't just a question of process within the JCP. And it's not just a question of closures or the other features we're looking at for Java 7. This is a question about the moral leadership of Java.

In the C# space, we have Anders. He clearly "owns" language, and acts as the benevolent dictator. Nothing goes into "his" language without his explicit and expressed OK. Other languages have similar personages in similar roles. Python has Guido. Perl has Larry. C++ has Bjarne. Ruby has Matz. Certainly other individuals "float" around these languages and lend their impressive weight towards the language's design--Scott Meyers, and Herb Sutter in C++, for example, or Dave Thomas and Martin Fowler in Ruby--but the core language design principles rest firmly inside the head of one man.

Whereso for Java? James Gosling? Please--Jimmy abandoned the language shortly after its release, and now only comes out every so often to launch T-shirts into the crowd, answer reporters' questions whenever something Java-related comes up, and blog his two cents' worth. He's a reminder of the "good old days", for sure, but he's not coming out with new directions of his own accord and taking the reins to lead us there. He's the Teddy Kennedy of the Java Party. His endorsement weighs in as about as influential as Bob Dole's--interesting to an analytical few, but hardly meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

Unfortunately, the two most recognized "benevolent dictators" of the Java language, Neal Gafter and Joshua Bloch, are on opposing sides of the aisle on this. Each has put forth a competing proposal for how the Java language should evolve. Each has his good reasons for how he wants to implement closures in Java. Each has his impressive list of names supporting him. It's Clinton and Obama, Java Edition. The fact is, though, that when these two disagreed on how to move forward, lots of Java developers found themselves in the uncomfortable position faced by the children when the parents fight: do you take sides? Do you try to make peace between them? Or do you just go hide your head under a pillow until the yelling stops?

This is the real danger facing Java right now: there is no one with enough moral capital and credibility in the Java space to make this call. We can take polls and votes and strawman proposals until the cows come home, but language design by committee has generally not worked well in the past. If someone without that authority ends up making the decision, it will alienate half the Java community regardless of which way the decision goes. The split is too even to expect one to come out as the obvious front-runner. And expecting a JSR committee process to somehow resolve the differences between these four proposals into a single direction forward is asking a lot.

So who makes the call?