Jess Holle wrote: > Casper Bang wrote: >> Sorry guys, but I just don't buy that JavaFX had no negative effect on >> JSR's and JSE development. Could we drop the feel-good spin for a >> moment and consider the evidence: >> >> - Some JSR's are as good as abandoned, i.e. JSR-296 where the spec >> lead (before quitting Sun) publicly acknowledged that he was being >> pulled in to working on JavaFX stuff. >> >> - A lot of senior people have left Sun, many from the Swing/client >> team and oddly over to the competitor client technology. This can't >> possibly be spun as a positive thing. >> >> - SwingLabs lost sponsorship, this is the place you'd turn to if you >> should have the ridiculous luxury need for a date picker or similar. >> >> - We still don't have a Java language JSR even though Java 7 was >> destined for summer 09'. Indeed Neal Gafter's comments on the lack of >> leadership and steering suggests this to be the primary reason for him >> jumping ship. >> >> While that may be acceptable to Sun and indeed it had some positive >> effect on the runtime, stating that it had no negative effect on JSR's >> and JSE development is just dumb because clearly it had. Can we just >> call a spade a spade?! > To some degree I think Sun chose to do a Java "next" for the client > with JavaFX. JSRs involve a lot more design by committee and Java 7 > features like closures are simply hot potatoes -- Sun's going to get > endless heat any which way they go on these. JavaFX was a chance for > design-by-one without having a lot of existing users in the space > screaming about every decision point (ala Java 7). > > That's not all good, of course, but I Gafter's comments seemed to > reflect a lack of desire/focus on the part of Sun, which I can't > second guess, without reflecting that no matter what Sun does in some > spaces, e.g. closures, they're going to get a huge number of existing > Java users mad and have trouble getting such contentious language > features through a design-by-committee JSR process. P.S. The backlash of Casper and others to JavaFX is also analogous to the backlash Sun would get for any really disruptive Java "next" -- a large portion of the community (myself included) would ask (scream) why Sun couldn't just focus on the big problems and address them in a non-disruptive manner in a non-disruptive Java version increment rather than getting distracted by some Java "next" with disruptive barriers between it and the community's existing Java investment.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
