Using a hypothetical lava means you're liable to be sued by Oracle for breach of patents - the exact same list that google has been sued for.
Using an official, TCK-seal-of-approval carrying java implementation means that cannot happen. So, other than accelerating the rate of change in the language, which is far, FAR more complicated than most people here seem to think it is, there are only downsides to doing so. For such a project to offer a compelling reason to switch, it needs to offer a lot more. This will probably involve backwards incompatible changes. For example, something as seemingly simple as adding function types and closures to java isn't. Most discussion on lambda-dev is still trying to piece together a workable proposal that lets java remain backwards compatible, and something as simple as generics reification (which itself is very very complicated when it needs to remain backwards compatible) means that function types aren't going to work all that well (as function types are essentially like generics parameters and thus hard to reify). Thus, the folks upvoting this stuff are most likely severely underestimating the effort required in outpacing Oracle in evolving java while retaining the java rules (Backwards compatibility in various interpretations). The alternative of not being backwards compatible is effectively the same as saying: We'll invent a new language. That's possibly a good idea, but many people are already doing that, and so far those projects haven't gotten much traction. There's the first such project (Groovy), and a project that made a major course change (Scala), which are new languages that more or less intend to be a better java that have some traction. The rest, not so much. On Oct 4, 9:01 pm, amiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a link to an article by someone called Greg Luck. > > http://www.dzone.com/links/is_it_time_to_fork_java.html > > Greg proposes a Java fork which would maintain compatibility with > existing Java6 code. > > I am wondering if this is indeed a good time, and if it's even legally > possible to fork it without licensing issues. > > I am thinking of a few reasons for the fork: the disappointing > progress with Java 7 (several features pushed back to Java 8, maybe > java 9/10..), the general frustration with the JCP process, and the > worrying dominance of the Java platform by a single organisation. > > Do you think there is a valid case for a fork, is it even feasible, > and could it gain traction within the community? > > What would be the licensing obstacles? > How could such a project be managed effectively? > Is there anything which could be improved in terms of the JCP, and > adding new features more quickly? > > Here's an insteresting reaction post by someone called Sacha: > > http://sacha.labourey.com/2010/10/04/time-to-fork-java-si-vis-pacem-p... > > Personally, I like the idea of a few copyleft (GPL) forks starting up, > with the *hope* that the strongest fork could become embraced in a > nice fluffy, happy agreement. ;) > > Any thoughts? -- 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.
