>I'll second you on the bugs issue and the problem with Suns 1001 API's
>approach. However to be fair you probably picked a bad eg. with
>parametric types as Sun has just put up a proposal for them.
I thank you for pointing this out, but they should have responded earlier. By not
implementing this in Java 2 but instead creating the new collections API (which is an
outstanding API based on the tools available in the language) they have done a great
injustice to the developers. Many have built designs paritally around this new
framework and would have to revise existing code significanlty because of the large
differences between the two solutions to the need for a collections library.
There isn't any need for a Java
>alternative because there is _nothing_ fundementally wrong with Java -
>only _implementations_ of it. However this is slowly being overcome - I
>would suggest that if you want to see a good quality Java implementation
>that you contribute to one of the free alternatives
>kaffe/japhar+classpath/etc. Even if you have been crippled by signing
>Suns licensing - you can at least run the programs maybe send in bugs
>fixes, write test scripts, docs, whatever.
>
>IMHO you're suggestion of an alternative to Java (I guess you mean the
>whole platform - ie. langauge,VM & class lib API) is on the same level
>as M$'s latest announcement of their alternative to Java (I forget its
>name - "Magic" or something like that).
The alternative is code named Cool, but I think there is a fundamental difference. The
idea is to seperate Java from Sun and there corporate goals not to kill Java in
general. I believe without seperating the two we will always be fighting this conflict
of interest. And since many believe (like I do) that Java will evolve into *the*
platform it seems wise to fight this sooner than later. If removing the profit motive
from Java requires creating a new platform so be it.
>I think I (and probably alot of other people) have spent alot of time
>and effort learning java, writing apps in java and are happy with java.
>I for one am more then happy with java and would rather work on
>improving its implementations then expending what would be need to be
>_huge_ amounts of resources on the of chance of coming up with something
>comparable. Such an effort would not be an answer to any of my prayers.
I see this as just another example of GPL'ing a commercial product and thus the small
pains of incompatablity would be warranted. Anyways, there is no need to change the
fundamentals of the language to the point that there would be any kind of significant
learning curve.
>Well having critised, its only fair for me to put forward an alternative
>suggestion: Move ahead with STANDARDISATION WITHOUT Sun. Surely its
>possible for ANSI/ISO to produce a standard without Sun. The API's,JVM
>& langauge specs are all published - only Java(tm)(c)(whatever) really
>is Suns property - so why not have the ANSI/ISO "J" standard, which
>just happens to be based on Suns Java.
>
>Now I admit I'm to young to know first hand what happened with C, but
>from what I've read K&R invented C, lots of people used/implemented it,
>ANSI after alot of work made a Standard for C that was a bit different
>from the original that everyone now uses (admittedly this is very
>simplified view of history).
I'm also to young to know the history of that event, but I wonder if this sort of
action could be contested by Sun on legal grounds. K&R wasn't a commercial product (or
was it?). If this was to be legal it would be a great option to avoid the problems I
spoke of in my original post and I would support it.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
