Ken McNeil writes:
> >I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one
> >thing.
>
> How is this "flaim bait"?
I can only tell you how I understood it: basically just like an
unjustified and unfair rant. Such posts are mostly seen as flame
baits, because they almost never start a calm technical discussion
and almost always start a flame war.
I'll try to discuss it - please forgive me if my temper leaves me
from time to time.
What are the points you brought up in the original post? Let's see:
1) no timely bug fixes and language extensions
Considering bug fixes, Sun gives the JDK for free, as a REFERENCE
implementation. The bugs, while annoying, haven't been an obstacle
to great many people who wrote a lot of Java code so far. Even a
commercial compiler/VM vendor is not going to jump on every bug you
report right away.
Considering language extensions: in my opinion, the pace Sun is
going is just right. Including everybodies pet extensions would
just make a mess out of the - now pretty clean - language.
Also don't forget: one man's useful extensions are another man's
worst nightmare. I, for example, am perfectly *happy* there are no
operator overloading or multiple inheritance in Java. I'm not even
sure whether I'd like to see templates in Java or not...
2) No ISO standardization.
If I weren't a cautious guy, I could say "who cares". But I am,
so I won't. :-)
Anyway, this doesn't strike me as a particularly bad thing. There
are a lot of great things around here without an ISO certificate.
3) No real "Open Source" from Sun
So what? Write your own clean room implementation and make it open
source. Actually, there already are a few teams doing it right now.
Sun has gone at considerable length in changing its' image since
the invention of Java - you can't expect them to run *THAT* fast.
Give credit where it's due.
4) Sun wanting to make Java run best on Solaris
Huh???? Have you actually checked the status of the Solaris JDK
lately? It's always been hinking *behind* Sun's Win32 JDK implementation!
Hell, even the Linux JDK port ("even" because it's a volunteer
project with only a small fraction of resources Sun has) seems a lot
better to me than the Sun's Solaris version (thanks Blackdown team, a
great job!!!)
Also, what do you mean by "move forward with or without Sun"?
Why do you think having "an alternative" in this case would be so
important? And, while you're at it, what should that alternative
look like?
I mean, it's not like somebody is locking you into a proprietary
system tied to only one platform/vendor/whatever!
> This is a topic that has been thrown around by
> plenty, and unless you work for Sun I see no reason why this should seem
> offensive to you.
I don't find it offensive, just extremely annoying. Sorry.
> >This link is the paper 'Sun Community Source License Principles' which does
> >a fair job at explaining the motivation behind the license:
> > http://www.sun.com/981208/scsl/principles.html
> >It would behoove one to familiarize oneself with this before ranting on
> >about everything Sun is doing wrong -- there is a lot they're doing right,
> >too.
>
> I have read it (not just the summary) and I like many others I believe they
> have not gone far enough. There is a fundamental problem that must be
> addressed:
>
> ***How do you deal with a platform controlled by a corporation?***
Where's the problem? Take what you have and do your job with it.
If you don't like it, take something else. I don't see how you
have to "deal" with it...
Sheesh, I can remember the times when we all coded our stuff in
assembly, without whining about "additional accumulators" or
an "ISO standardized instruction set". Sure, we've had some
great "6502 vs. Z80" flame wars, but that was something
different. :-)
Maybe I'm just getting old.
> >So, there is a clear tension between the desire to make Java truly Open
> >Source and the desire to prevent it from fragmenting to the point where its
> >market penetration is weakened. Clearly, as supporters of Java, we should
> >be
> >supportive of both goals. Otherwise it will be all too easy for someone
> >else
> >to come along with a "Java killer" which ends up dominating the market in
> >its place.
>
> This is were my opinions differ from many. I believe that even though the
> splintering of Java (Sun's Java not just a Java like language) would be
> negative, creating a viable alternative is important.
If you tell us exactly why you think so and what this "alternative"
should look like, maybe somebody would be able to say something about
it. I don't think adding a few C++ thingies to Java and calling it
Java++ (or however) would make "a viable alternative".
> There is currently
> nothing like Java out there and this is not only dangerous
Why is it dangerous?
> but odd when you
> look at the number of other languages out there. A fundamental part of the
> evolution of a technology is competition.
Well, nobody is holding you back! If you make something better, I'll
be among the first to adopt it.
> >So, give Sun a little slack. They are making an honest effort to do the
> >right thing. It is far more constructive to work within the framework which
> >they are trying to build, and to provide useful feedback on that framework,
> >than simply "jumping ship" on Sun altogether. That approach can't do
> >anything
> >good for Java in the long run.
>
> Competition is good for Java!
Substantiate this, please. What kind of competition? How is it good?
What are the negative sides of it? Do the positive sides out-weight
the negative ones?
Do you REALLY want to make Java into the horrible mess C++ is today?
Cheers, alex.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving
to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe
trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe
is winning." -- Rich Cook
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
