I think what this honestly boils down to is that Jobs saw value in Java years ago and sees far less value in it now, at least as a Desktop development technology.
My frustration is now what do all of use who found Java on Mac an outstanding development experience for our server-side development do next? I was going to drop 30k in Apple hardware for running a bunch of my development systems and my director and VP are far less inclined to make that purchase now (and I don't blame them). FWIW I agree... JG's comments are all speculative. The only ones who know what's next are Oracle and Apple. And neither seem to be talking much. On Nov 8, 11:02 am, "Joe Nuxoll (Java Posse)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, Chris - I think I was trying to make this point. I think the > "secret" APIs argument is a red herring of speculation by JG. > > - Joe > > On Nov 8, 10:36 am, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just listening to #329 and I think undue attention is paid to OSX > > "secret APIs" in the context of a hypothetical community port of a Mac > > JDK. > > > Gosling's > > bloghttp://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/steve_jobs_comments_on_apple > > complains about secret APIs in graphics rendering, but then goes on to > > say (as Tor points out in this episode) that Java on the Mac uses the > > default Java graphics pipeline, meaning that any platform-specific > > graphics rendering abilities, secret or not, are off the table > > anyways. This is what Gosling is complaining about in the third graf: > > Oracle's insistence that Apple abandon its anti-aliased rendering > > pipeline, and stay pixel-for-pixel compatible with aliased Windows XP. > > > Secondly, in the context of #329's discussion, it's not clear why > > secret APIs are even relevant. The things that an AWT/Swing port > > needs to provide are a known problem, and it is known that these > > things can all be done with public APIs. After all, SWT does them > > all, and is far more entangled with native widgets than Swing/AWT. > > And since SWT is open source, it should be straightforward to go see > > how they did it. So, I don't buy that secret APIs are necessary for a > > SwingAWT port. > > > Frankly, I don't think there's a hidden empire of wonderful secret > > APIs in Mac OS X. If there are, then I'd like to know why iTunes is > > still such a goddamn train-wreck. As most people acknowledge, many > > secret APIs are hacks and kludges that haven't had adequate review and > > aren't fit for third-party use. Also for those secret APIs that are > > found through various means (method swizzing, memory inspection, > > etc.), there's no technical reason on OS X that you can't call them -- > > look at the Ars article that Gosling cites and you'll see that the > > problem isn't that Mozilla can't see the secret function that WebKit > > uses (they know it's called WKDisableCGDeferredUpdates), but that the > > licensing implications of calling it are unclear. Big difference, > > though still a blocker for Mozilla. > > > One unrelated thing I thought of while mentally composing this note. > > The Mac has two viable graphics APIs: Quartz (aka, Core Graphics), and > > OpenGL. Quartz is implemented in OpenGL, which provides hardware- > > acceleration for all system graphics (yay). So a port of Java2D would > > presumably want to use Quartz. But then I wondered: has anyone > > implemented Java2D in OpenGL? I thought there was a project doing > > this years ago, but I couldn't remember. If so, then it might be > > worth investigating if it would be practical for a hypothetical port > > to use that for its Java2D implementation, using NSOpenGLViews all > > over the place and then drawing Java2D->OpenGL into them. > > > --Chris -- 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.
