Because, Lloyd, the OpenJDK is here, and that IS the same thing. The curve of the official apple VM's lag is also sharply on its way down, in case you're developing Swing / JavaFX, where I have already conceded there's very minor concern. The vast majority of java programmers I know of write servers, web apps, command line tools, or SWT (which has been tracking on apple nicely, and neither sun nor apple is doing anything for it).
On May 5, 1:47 am, Lloyd Meinholz <[email protected]> wrote: > I honestly don't understand why you think questioning that the Mac universe > is maybe not the best place for Java develoers. is fud. In the recent past, > Apple took a long time to update the JDK to 1.6 and patch 1.5. How far > behind in their releases were they? 1, 2 years? They said nothing of the > reasoning, they gave no roadmap for next releases. There is no reason to > think that they might not do something similar again. OpenJDK is not the > same thing. There are disadvantages to having to start up an X11.app to use > Java on the Mac. Things may be ok now, but it wasn't in the recent past and > there is no guarantee that it will be in the future. Back in the day, there > was a huge difference is using blackdown Java on Linux vs. using the Sun > JDK. > > You guys can all love you Macs and MacOSX and iWhatever and they are great > machines, but you should really be more honest with yourself about Apple's > intentions. I'm buying hardware and software to develop for and use in the > way that I think is best, not the way Apple thinks is best. > > Lloyd > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Replies inline. > > > > 1) Would you agree that given actions and words, Apple also considers > > > Java an inferior and irrelevant platform? > > > Yes. Especially for desktop apps. Just like ruby, python, mono, the > > entirety of the terminal (including bash, find, grep and friends), > > lua, scala, java, PHP and any other language you care to name. For NON- > > desktop apps though, apple still sells a server OS. They don't sell an > > Objective C based web framework. So, what the heck are you on about? > > > This might be of some concern to JavaFX users. Minor concern, of > > course - you can claim the OpenJDK is unstable but that's rather > > offensive to the OpenJDK crew, and X11.app works perfectly well if > > that's what it ends up taking, though with the recent popularity > > especially amongst developers neither Apple nor Oracle can afford to > > let such a situation stand. Apple sells servers. Servers run server > > software. Like web servers with webapps on them. Apple themselves use > > WebObjects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects) which they > > themselves wrote. In Java. > > > Stop fudding. > > > > 2) While Steve's cross-air might be aimed at Adobe, his flak shooting > > > has broad implications across the board. Do you think he has moral > > > issues with the collateral damage it's creating beyond his own iWorld? > > > (i.e. Novell's MonoTouch customers) > > > Moral issues? I'm quite sure he's so focussed and passionate on giving > > the world his personal vision of the future that he's so far > > entrenched in "the end justifies the means" it would take a direct > > moral conflict for him to consider anything he steers apple into as > > immoral. That's problematic for us and all the more reason to pressure > > Apple into caring more about such issues. > > > Stop fudding. You claimed Java support on OS X is unreliable. What > > does Steve's flak shooting and his moral compass have to do with java > > support on Os X? If you were holding on to your hat about somehow > > using java to write for the iPhone or iPad, and / or if you weren't > > but you feel the current situation is very bad news, I'll join you on > > the picket line. iPhone / iPad and macbooks aren't the same thing > > though. So stop fudding. > > > > 3) Do you see any monopolistic behavioral pattern that suggests Apple > > > is the new Microsoft, except that Apple has the benefit of good taste > > > and is still not big enough as a target for anti-trust litigation? > > > Yes. If you'd read my other posts you'd know that. > > > Stop fudding. You claimed Java support on OS X is unreliable. What > > does Apple's stellar rise to power have to do with java support on Os > > X? If anything, OS X being more entrenched than ever DECREASES the > > odds that there won't be a decent java available on OS X. If not > > apple, then sunoracle will step up. They can't not. > > > Unless you're going to claim that we'll see an app store model in the > > near future of OS X, where you simply cannot run any apps on an OS X > > machine at all unless personally signed and verified by apple. Which > > is completely ludicrous. If that's truly what you think and why you're > > FUDing java on OS X, you should say so, so the folks reading your > > advice can make their own judgement on the likelyhood of this extreme > > scenario. > > > > /Casper > > > > “We’ve been there before, > > > and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer > > > ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the > > > platform.” > > > > On May 4, 2:20 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Given that OpenJDK7 already builds on Mac OS X today, I'm guessing > > > > we'll have to wait about a minute after OpenJDK 7 final is released, > > > > depending on how fast your computer can build the OpenJDK. Duh. > > > > > Stop fudding. > > > > > On May 4, 10:42 am, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > 1. The recent letter to Adobe shows that Apple clearly believe Cocoa > > to the > > > > > the "One True Way". Anything else is going through a "private > > library" or > > > > > "intermediate framework", and we KNOW what happens to those. > > > > > > 2. Java access to Cocoa has been deprecated. This is not just lack > > of a > > > > > timely release, it's now permanently locked out of the pearly gates > > (unless > > > > > it goes via JNI, which will mean someone else's framework...) > > > > > > 3. As for timely updates of Java? The painfully slow wait for Java > > 6, > > > > > accompanied by no information whatsoever, is now infamous in the eyes > > of > > > > > many developers. Given that Apple now seem to consider Java less > > important > > > > > that it was back then, how long will we have to wait for Java 7 once > > it's > > > > > out? > > > > > > On 4 May 2010 02:16, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Of course it's 100% FUD - the fact that apple no longer considered > > > > > > cocoa libraries for java important is completely irrelevant > > compared > > > > > > to releasing timely java updates. I don't see the availability or > > > > > > timeless of updates of MFC bindings in windows java, or KDE > > bindings > > > > > > for linux java raise anyone's concern. Why should cocoa be any > > > > > > different? > > > > > > > On May 3, 5:03 pm, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's not 100% FUD > > > > > > > > Java as a user of the Cocoa API got relegated to a 2nd class > > citizen with > > > > > > > the release of OSX Tiger: > > > > > >http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/qa/qa2001/qa1342.html > > > > > > > > On 3 May 2010 15:17, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Casper, for the fiftheenth bloody time, STOP FUDDING about java > > on > > > > > > > > macs. > > > > > > > > >http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/ > > > > > > > > > OpenJDK for the win. > > > > > > > > > Pro-Apple bias amongst geeks is rooted due to the fact that as > > far as > > > > > > > > notebooks are concerned, apple's hardware is fit for a > > programmer > > > > > > > > whereas your average notebook / desktop PC that doesn't host a > > shiny > > > > > > > > apple logo on it is a piece of crap. It's hard to take a > > standpoint > > > > > > > > against a supplier of something no one else supplies. If it had > > been > > > > > > > > related to 'alternative to microsoft', we'd have seen similar > > bias > > > > > > > > towards linux and solaris but that's not really panning out, > > hence > > > > > > > > your theory does not seem to hold water. > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:29 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In this particular context, I think the bias is rooted in > > your foe's > > > > > > > > > enemy being your friend. For the longest time Apple was the > > escape > > > > > > pod > > > > > > > > > that hardcore Java developers took from the evil empire's > > mother > > > > > > ship. > > > > > > > > > However, these recent events are really just a predictable > > further > > > > > > > > > escalation, considering Java on a Mac is typically 1½-2 years > > behind > > > > > > > > > other platform releases. It should come as no surprise then, > > when > > > > > > > > > Apple undoubtedly drops all support for client Java within > > the > > > > > > not-too- > > > > > > > > > distant future invoking all too familiar arguments. I do feel > > that > > > > > > > > > several of the posse members took a far more healthy and > > critical > > > > > > > > > outlook on Apple over the past year though, lead by our posse > > editor > > > > > > > > > in chief. > > > > > > > > > > /Casper > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 10:45 am, Liam Knox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Should I just say Apple is purely after a monopoly i.e. the > > cash, > > > > > > > > > > unlike Joe's stated reasons ? > > > > > > > > > > Does that make it clearer > > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 5:06 pm, Kerry Sainsbury <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > To describe Apples doctorine on Flash or Java on > > their mobile > > > > > > > > devices > > > > > > > > > > > > > as purely due to a want of consistent user experience > > is just > > > > > > > > nonsense > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The clear reason.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not convincing! Calling something "nonsense" or > > "clear" > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > it so. Try forming a cogent argument next time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, Liam's next sentence was "You could equally diverge > > from > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > perceived athletics using objective C of any of > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
