Jauvane Cavalcante de Oliveira wrote:
> > Why did Microsoft do this? Because they were trying to optimize the performance
>of WFC
> > calls (their Java interface to MFC). MFC is, of course, native code. If WFC
>required
> > memory copies for every access to Java memory, the performance of WFC would suck.
>So
> > Microsoft chose not to implement JNI.
>
> Most likely they tried to crush Java by creating a poluted version. This way many
> developers could write code to their java language, hence being once again attached
>to
> Windows... Well, fortunately they lost the first instance in the lawsuit with Sun
>and they
> will have to comply with real Java (so, there is no such thing is MS JNI
>implementation
> anymore, I didn't even bother memorizing its name). This way Java code will have no
>need
> for any specific OS (such as Windows.. Did you get why they did that?).
Yes, this did factor into Microsoft's reasoning. However, when the decision was
originally
made, it was made for performance reasons relating to WFC. The FUD aspect was an
afterthought. This, of course, placed them in an alleged violation with their license
with
Sun (btw, the injuction is a preliminary decision to prevent further damage until the
outcome
of the trial is complete--the trial is not yet over, and Sun has not yet "won").
My point is that if you write pure Java code, it will work on the Microsoft JVM.
Furthermore,
the Microsoft JVM is pretty darn good, from a technical standpoint.
I can't agree with Microsoft for desiring to split the Java camp. However, their
decision not
to support JNI was as much a technical decision as a FUD decision. The FUD is more
related to
Microsoft's inclusion of WFC in the first place, not in their decision not to support
JNI.
If you think I'm a MS suporter, or whatever, you simply need look at my posts on
Slashdot (my
user ID is "The Mayor"). I am *not* a suporter of MS. However, I work for a company
that
releases Java development tools, and have come in direct contact with VJ++ developers
as a
result. If they have me fooled as to their intentions, then so be it. I am certainly
not
immune to being fooled. But, as an "insider", I can confidently say that there are
technical
reasons for leaving JNI support out of the JVM (besides, JNI was not part of the
standard when
MS' JVM was first released).
>
> > I also get upset when I hear FUD directed *to* Microsoft.
>
> You will get upset a lot yet as the antitrust case goes on... I have no personal
> complaints about MS, but their way of business, kinda "If I don't like, it won't
>exist"
> doesn't seem to be correct. They really gotta have some agency to hold it.
I *do* have personal complaints about MS (code bloat, the price of their OSes to OEMs
has
quadrupled in the past 3 years, they've squashed WordPerfect, Dr. Dos, OS/2, and
numerous
others). Their decisions concerning Java were partly driven by their desire to split
the Java
camp. However, unlike their behavior wrt the aforementioned products, I don't really
see how
their decision concerning Java was anti-competitive. It was, IMO (and I'm no the judge
presiding over the case, so it's merely an opinion), a violation of their license with
Sun,
and as such, will likely be reversed. But it was not anti-competitive (they didn't
use an
existing monopoly to create a new monopoly, or to extend their existing monopoly).
Microsoft will get punished for their anti-competitive behavior. However, that is a
separate
subject from the Java issue. And, despite all the FUD on both sides, Microsoft's JVM
is
pretty darn good.
-dan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
