Well now wait a minute. I'm not in favor of a fork, but I'm not sure I agree with this logic. First, what size of a company are you talking about a CTO for? IBM or Google? Or a small startup? The former are going to be more conservative and slower to change simply because they have a large investment in today's Java. But a smaller, newer company isn't going to have that same investment, and will likely need a place to gain an advantage over their bigger competition, and a better platform could be a way to provide that advantage. They are mainly going to be the ones to adopt a fork (or more likely, a new JVM-based language like Scala or Clojure), so it makes no sense to deride an idea simply because large companies won't be willing to switch to it.
Second, Java was at one point the new kid on the block. And despite its immaturity, companies were willing to adopt it. Same with C/C++ before it. On Oct 5, 3:54 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. > > It's very easy for anonymous dzone developers to vote the post up and say > "yeah, great idea" but maybe they should pause and ponder this: > > "Imagine you're the CTO of your company. Six months from now, Lava releases > v1.0 of their new language. Do you convert your entire company to use it or > stick with Java?". > > -- > Cédric > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/5/10 21:13 , Jan Goyvaerts™ wrote: > > >> Would the "forkers" be allowed to modify the language and VM, and still > >> call it "Java" ? > > >> Not, of course, hence the subject. BTW, there are a bit of more posts > > about the same topic. > > >http://blog.eisele.net/2010/10/free-java-jcpnext-here-are-options.html > > > I'm pretty negative about that - it seems just bad timing. There are a few > > individuals that are declaring the big failure of Oracle's stewardship, and > > the past J1, and I'd first like to learn how they are representative. I must > > also say that while I'm not satisfied by some things that Oracle is doing > > (more precisely, things that it is not doing), I don't understand how this > > comes after J1, where some light has been shed upon strategies (Java 7 and > > 8) that have been very badly managed by Sun, not Oracle, in the past two > > years (see e.g. Mario Fusco's comments about the unfeasability of the Java 7 > > plans that were made public one month ago). Now we have a roadmap till 2012. > > BTW, the whole community is not representative, in the sense that there is > > no formal democratic delegation model; in any case, I suppose JUGs are more > > representative than individuals and I'd first like what are the feelings in > > JUGs. For what I can say, and of course I'm _not_ representative too, some > > JUGs and JUG leaders are more on the wait. > > > There is a positive note in one of the posts (can't remember the author, > > the one who said "si vis pace para bellum"), that is the realistic > > acknowledgement that the community alone can't sustain a fork of the JDK > > (OpenOffice, but also GlassFish, NetBeans or other stuff are a totally > > different thing - I think that people should really sit down and realize > > first what's inside the VM). I was saying about that realistic > > acknowledgment, in fact the guy proposes an alliance of the community with > > the other vendors such as IBM, HP and so on for the forking and creation of > > a foundation to manage the fork. > > > Now, you should only know how much this stinks of rotten italian politics, > > where parties spend 90% of their time in moving on the chessboard to gain an > > advantage point, and possibly damage the opposite sides, and a mere 10% > > remains to govern the country. The results are not pleasing: we just go > > nowhere. I've got a strong feeling that a foundation managing Java, instead > > of being a neutral body supported by the corporates, would be their hostage > > for their politics, with the community playing the useful idiot - let's not > > forget that any corporate plays the community friend when it needs and the > > (more or less) benevolent dictator when it can. I think that the Oracle > > attitude change from 2007 to 2010 explains this very well. > > > I'm usually very in favour of the "si vis pace para bellum" strategy, > > generically speaking, but for preparing the war you need to create a > > sustainable and reliable alliance of partners, which I don't see as > > feasible. The only net result would be to upset Oracle and create a break > > with the community, favouring the internal Oracle faction that is opposing > > the community, and jeopardizing what could be achievable with more patience. > > Not to say an explosion in cross-lawsuits, as if we there weren't enough of > > them right now. > > > I think it makes more sense to closely follow Oracle as they pursue the > > Java 7 milestone. > > > -- > > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > > [email protected] > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > Cédric -- 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.
