Give the existence of mono, it might be argued that all of these benefits are available on the .NET VM. Although last I heard, JVM was still outperforming in benchmarks.
And bear in mind... This is not simply about "getting rid of Oracle software". It's about: 1) Having an easy option to move away from that platform if licence fees are introduced that make it unprofitably expensive. 2) Making sure that Oracle is aware they don't have quite so much vendor lock-in. This should act to dissuade them from some of their possible greediest excesses. It isn't so profitable to drive customers away... On 1 September 2010 13:19, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > But if you go the non-JVM way, you'll loose all the advantages it offers > too: cross-platform, hotspot code tuning, memory management, ... Would you > go back the bronze-age software development - just for the sake of getting > rid of oracle software ? > > If it's worth such a radical change, maybe you'd rather start a new > language with a new VM. There was such a suggestion on James Gosling's blog: > Why wouldn't he start a new language for a new VM ? It would be a great > thing to do: it's the right time, the right man and we would be able to shed > all the weight that was kept for the backwards-compatibility. > > And as a sidenote I see Glassfish is Oracle's now too. Aaaaaargh.... ;-) > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 13:54, Kevin Wright <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Not really. We said that Ruby code can be run on the JVM, and later >> ported to the Ruby runtime (or to IronRuby) if that becomes necessary. >> >> It was also stated that, for Scala in particular, there are development >> environments and build tools available that aren't tied to the JVM. >> >> For languages that cross-compile to CLR, there are also projects such as >> ja.NET (http://www.janetdev.org/) that can provide Java core libraries on >> that platform, as well as help porting 3rd-party Java libraries. >> >> Porting 3rd-party Scala frameworks should be as simple as recompiling. >> >> >> On 1 September 2010 12:39, Miroslav Pokorny >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> But did you not just state that one can easily replace JRuby with the >>> real thing at any time as java the platform and its wealth of libraries, >>> tools etc is not an major priority in the platform decision making process ? >>> >>> -- >>> 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Wright >> >> mail/google talk: [email protected] >> wave: [email protected] >> skype: kev.lee.wright >> twitter: @thecoda >> >> -- >> 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
