On 10/7/10 22:49 , Nick Brown wrote:
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.
I agree on your first point: I believe that small players could adopt
*ava, while large players would stay on Java. That's precisely one of
the worst things that could happen, it would be a great fraction. One of
the best qualities of Java is that it scales and fits the needs from the
small ones to the large ones. I think it's one of the main reasons of
its success. Break the equilibrium, and you'd have both Java and *ava to
become quickly losers. In particular *ava: I think that the panorama of
small players would get extremely fragmented.
--
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].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
