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. 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.
> > 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.
>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.
>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) like any other open-source
project there would be certain rules imposed on the development process to
prevent just what you are speaking of. Also once again I'm not posting this
because Sun didn't add my (or anyone elses) feature. 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.
>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. 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.
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 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.
> > 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 :^)
> > ***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.
>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. 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.
> > 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 :^)
> > 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...
1. In the spirit of Darwinism we could say that without competition Java is
likely to stagnate (like C++ did). By adding competition to the environment
that made C++ the mess you speak of would have been avoided. In fact Java is
simply competition to C++ that came a little to late to help it along.
2. In the spirit of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" without competition the
pace at which Java develops will be slower and will lead to a weaker product
in the end.
3. Competition does not necessarily imply that you will get a large amount
of little add-ons that will lead to a mess like C++. This happens when
technical choices are made in the market place not democratically. With an
open development environment you will see a hybrid of this market place vs.
democratic development process.
_______________________________________________________________
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]
