It was a very Sun-like thing to do. Sun dropped the 2. after their 2.6 release. Solaris 7 was the next release... then 8.

Ahh so 17, is 1.17?

I swear I googled this like 2 months ago and the first 2 or 3 links weren't helpful so I gave up. Thanks!

Effectively yes, but the "1.x" format is deprecated since Java 9 and not used anymore, whereas versions 5 through 8 used both notations.

See https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223#Dropping-the-initial-1-ele...

And now it is the other way around. C# burning through the versions to catch up the versions (and not so much the content).

PS: had to edit, was really just a note about the numbers not the content of the versions!!!

C# has never had to play catch-up with Java, it's always been the other way around.

Ohhh.... C# was invented as a response to Java... So it had to play catch-up with Java - at it's inception...

Even worse: C# came as a response when Microsoft failed to apply their embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on Java like they did with Netscape[1].

In the end the case was settled out of court and MS agreed to pay more then 1 billion dollar to Sun. MS also agreed to license a whole slew of patents for use with .net.

[1] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/sun-sues-microsof...

Thats kind of a hyperbole.

.net didn't add support for macOS on ARM64 years ago. .net also didn't implement 2D rendering on macOS via Metal. etc. As a matter of fact .net didn't even support any other platform then Windows until recently.

I think I would be generous if I stated 10% of the .net applications ran on Mono instead of MS CLR without source modifications. I even doubt more then 60% of the .net applications ran on .net Core (needed for other platforms then Windows) without modifications.

Meaning .net has nowhere near the "write once, run anywhere" support Java has.

Just version numbers, not content :)