Ken,
first I'd like to appologize for some of the comments I made
- I'm aware now that they could be understood as much more
offensive than I intended them to be.
Ken McNeil writes:
> First off you have taken my intentions to an extreme. I only
> wish to discuss these issues openly and in no way am I attempting
> to create anything.
You gave this thread the title "Sun Bashing 2", so I might have
read what I expected to read, instead of what you realy wrote.
Sorry for that.
> And
> also you have highlighted some things in my original post
> that are not truly significant to my message. I will point
> this out below.
If I have done so, it wasn't in an attempt to discredit you or
to twist the meaning of your words. I thought those parts were
important.
> > > 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.
>
> Then you have misjudged my intentions. I wanted to start a discussion about
> the long term implications of Sun controlling Java, because of the recent
> news involving the standardization of Java. By using some of the common
> complaints of others in my post I was attempting to point out areas where
> dealing with a corporation in general can be difficult, opposed to a
> community process. If you wish to twist this into a flame war I will simply
> stop my end of the discussion.
I've never started a flame war before, and I sure didn't
want to do so now (especially not here!) :-)
For starts, I think we could both agree on having misjudged
the intentions of the other side and have a nice discussion now. :-)
> >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.
>
> True, but yet in a community process this would not be the case.
That's true. It would be nice if Sun would open up the sources for
JDK. However, I still believe we can't realy expect that from
them. Moving too fast in an unusual direction could scare the
hell out of the stock holders - and Sun's first responsibility,
unfortunately, is to make them feel good.
IBM, with it's waste resources, can afford such things (jikes).
Sun, IMO, has to go more cautiously.
> >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...
>
> If Java was open (or an open version was created)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what I suppose can (and eventualy will) happen. But I don't
think it'll come from Sun.
> like any other open-source
> project there would be certain rules imposed on the development process to
> prevent just what you are speaking of.
True.
> Also once again I'm not posting this
> because Sun didn't add my (or anyone elses) feature.
That's clear to me now. However, the first time I read your
post, I thought just that.
> Personally however I'd
> vote no on operator overloading, no on multiple inheritance, but yes on
> generic programming (templates).
>
> >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.
>
> The purpose behind making Java an ISO standard (or any other type of
> standard) is to take the control out of the creators hands. It is not
> important how this happens, just that it does happen, so there are plenty of
> alternatives to ISO.
Forgive my ignorance: who gets the control if ISO (or some similar
organisation) standardizes Java?
I admit that I don't know much about the ISO standardization processes,
or about this particular case, but I can understand why Sun would want
to move very cautiously in this area: the influence Microsoft has
today is unbelivable. Giving the control out of their hands too
fast (or too easy) could mean Microsoft would have it easier to get
to it (or at least a large part of it).
Now, I *am* aware that Sun's intensions are primarily to make money,
not to make the world a better place. :-) I just want to offer
another explanation of Sun's actions (that is, keeping Microsoft
off, instead of just being greedy).
> >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.
>
> I will admit that Sun has done very well for a corporation, but I don't
> believe they will never be able to produce a pure development environment
> under their current model.
I'm not sure I understand this part.
If you wanted to say you don't believe they can't do any better than
what they've shown so far, then I agree with you. I was just
arguing about their speed - I don't think they can go much faster
than this.
> What is best for Sun's bottom line will not
> always be best for you project. Even though we have not seen a significant
> case of the effect I will happen.
>
> >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!!!)
>
> Well maybe, maybe not, but you must admit that the *sole* reason that Sun is
> doing all this Java stuff is so that they can sell more Solaris
> boxes.
Most probably it was, at the beginning. Now it seems they gave up this
line of thinking, otherwise we wouldn't have to wait for the Solaris
version of the JDK 1.2 for so long. They must have found a better way to
make money off Java than using it to push up the hardware sales.
I don't know how much you have been in contact with Solaris lately.
We're a Solaris-only shop (well... a university institute :-) ), and
we have been using Java a lot lately. Unforunatelly, it looks
like Sun doesn't realy care about how long it will take them to
come up with a good version of JDK 1.2 on their own OS... :-(
> Otherwise they would not be distributing the JDK for free. So thus their
> intentions are a bit tainted.
>
> >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?
>
> It would be a complete knock off of Java.
I'd probably like it. I just don't think it's realistic to expect Sun
to come up with something like that. Why would they compete against
themselves? :-)
Please note, that 1.1 is quite an improvement over 1.0. Would that
count as an evolutionary step from Sun?
> >I mean, it's not like somebody is locking you into a proprietary
> >system tied to only one platform/vendor/whatever!
>
> But the development of the platform is completly under Sun's terms and thus
> we don't have the freedom that most would like to have.
You do make a point here. Fortunately, if I understood it well, one
can always market an alternative under a different name, so I still
don't have a problem with Sun holding the control over Java. I mean,
they do deserve to get their investment back, after all...
> > > 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.
>
> Then ignore it :^)
I can't. :-)
And, after clearing up a few points, it doesn't look annoying any
more. I was just explaining why it looked like a flame bait.
Most probably, with a more nautral subject, nobody would
misunderstand your intentions.
> > > ***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...
>
> If an open langauge/platform existed with the capabilities of Java then one
> could go somewhere else, but that is not the case.
>
> >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. :-)
>
> So should we be content with things like this? No.
The above comment was only to point out that it's not only the tool
that does the job, but the programmer. Please bear in mind, that I
said it while I still thought you'd just be flame-baiting, so don't
take it too seriously. :-)
> >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".
>
> As I said in another reply to clarify this, Java is a great language and I
> can count on one hand the number of improvements I would even entertain. So
> if this theoretical alternative was created it would not vary significantly
> from Sun's Java.
>
> > > There is currently
> > > nothing like Java out there and this is not only dangerous
> >Why is it dangerous?
>
> Because if Java becomes *the* platform Sun will become Microsoft.
This is where we disagree. One of the main reasons for the success of
Java is that it's clean, nice, comes with a lot of fully documented
libraries (even in source) and platform independent. That's why J++
has failed (at least I think it failed). If Sun would try to change
Java into something closed and proprietary, they would loose all they
worked for for years - the people wouldn't allow being fooled into
something like that *again* (the first time M$ did it). I don't think
they can afford it.
> Java is
> fundamentally different platform, it is like nothing else that has ever been
> created. Because of this it is somewhat nieve to think that it will not be
> replaced by a second generation technology or at least experience some
> competition.
I don't think so. I just think that Sun can't push Javas' evolution
very fast.
As we've learned from another post in this thread, Sun already made
a proposal for the only extension for which you said "yes" and I said
"not sure" (generic programing)...
> > > 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.
>
> Okay, so you believe that something better could exist. That's a
> start :^)
I'm sorry if I made another impression. It would be very stupid of
me to claim Java is perfect.
> > > 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?
>
> Okay, I will substantiate this...
[snip three good points]
I see your position now - it's not that much different from mine after
all.
Again, I'm sorry for the rough tone of my previous post.
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]
