The first part of the answer is the same as that for a similar question we've been asked about LinkedList: we don't deprecate things that are heavily used, however useless or superseded by something else, unless they are very harmful. Deprecation in Java does not mean "unrecommended" but "absolutely do not use this if you want your program to continue working on future versions." Not only is it a compile-time warning, but JDK tooling even checks for uses of deprecated APIs in binaries and warns about them. Ideally, deprecated usages should break people's builds. In other words, deprecation is a big deal and not taken lightly. We might need another standardised term for "unrecommended" or "superseded".
The second part of the answer is that there are still good uses cases for heavyweight threads, that are backed by one OS thread. For example, as carriers for virtual threads or parallel streams, i.e. as approximations of CPU cores, and also for cases where FFI is used for IO or some other native interaction. This is very rare in Java, but very rare could mean "used only in tens of thousands of programs rather than tens of millions".
> The second part of the answer is that there are still good uses cases for heavyweight threads, that are backed by one OS thread.
Hold the phone. Didn't you just say a few comments up that I shouldn't think of a "Java thread" like an "OS thread"?
If I use a Thread, today, how do I know if it's corresponding to an OS thread? I understand that it will, theoretically, depend on the platform on which the JVM is running. But on a non-exotic platform (x86/ARM Windows, Linux, macOs, Android, etc), does one Java Thread map to one OS Thread or not?
I meant that a Java thread, like the List interface, is an abstraction with multiple implementations for you to choose from.
In OpenJDK (i.e. the Oracle implementation of Java) today, a Java thread is implemented as a wrapper of an OS thread; I believe OpenJ9, the IBM implementation, does the same. But the Java specification does not require it. Loom might change the specification to require it, or leave the implementation of "platform threads" (i.e. non-virtual threads) up to the specific Java implementation.
Are virtual threads preemptable? If not, then one use for OS threads is when running a bunch of compute intensive tasks and you don't want worry about stalling everything else. I suppose in that case you could just use a separate executor for those expensive tasks. I wonder how many devs will spawn tasks using the default executor and then wonder why things aren't working out so well? Will there be tooling to help identify such issues?
Yes, but the preemption operation is not currently publicly exposed. We're considering whether and how to expose it.
> I wonder how many devs will spawn tasks using the default executor and then wonder why things aren't working out so well? Will there be tooling to help identify such issues?
What those issues would actually be, in practice, is still unclear, hence our reluctance to expose forced preemption. People rely on OS time-sharing (what you call preemption) inside applications far less than they think. No scheduling algorithm can make a program that requires more processing resources than available to run well.
The second part of the answer is that there are still good uses cases for heavyweight threads, that are backed by one OS thread. For example, as carriers for virtual threads or parallel streams, i.e. as approximations of CPU cores, and also for cases where FFI is used for IO or some other native interaction. This is very rare in Java, but very rare could mean "used only in tens of thousands of programs rather than tens of millions".