Isn't the whole point of a fork that people don't trust Oracle to be a good steward of the language?
On Oct 7, 5:35 pm, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Nick Brown <[email protected]> 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. > > I don't think the size of the company matters. Even if it's just two people, > would you bet the entire future of your company on a language that's six > months old and backed up by a vague open source movement? What guarantee do > you have that the fork will be maintained, that bugs will get fixed, that > new features will be implemented, that performance will keep improving, > etc...? > > -- > 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.
