On 7 January 2013 11:13, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:24:41 PM UTC+1, Simon Ochsenreither wrote: >> >> >> OpenJDK is as much open source as Android: it is in the licensing sense; >> but not in the community and collaboration sense. >> Someone should probably invent a new word for it, so that people don't >> have false assumptions. >> > > For far too long, people (in this group as well) have inflated "open > source" with artificial attributes. It's odd really, because the wording is > quite precise; the source code is open for inspection, and depending on the > license, open for modification. However, just how the project is governed > is out of the scope of any OSS-license that I am aware of. > > While it's really nice to have code available, at the end of the day, it's > more important to use an open standard than open source - the source is > simply an implementation detail, nothing more and nothing less. That's my > main beef with Java, it is not as much a standardized syntax and API as it > is a narrow 3-tier product (JME/JSE/JEE); as Microsoft, Apache and Google > would come to learn each their own way (arguably Microsoft the least > elegant of the crowd). > > It seems the best we can hope for then, is when open source and open > standards intersect. However, even so, regardless of it being a committee > or Linus Torvalds, somebody needs to coordinate and standardize around a > mainline with a trademark (Java, .NET, Android, Ubuntu etc.). In the case > of Java, it's just unfortunate that there's a heavy tie to a required > runtime environment which Oracle doesn't really know what to do with. Let's > keep in mind, that Lombok itself is a symptom of lack of features in the > language which btw. Google is also exploring (i.e. Android R file > generation). The Java space seems divided into 3 groups now: those who > continue the vanilla road, those who explore workarounds and finally (an > ever increasing) group of people who left the ecosystem over alternatives > like Clojure, Scala etc. and who for practical purposes might as well > substitute the JVM with Parrot, CLR, whatever. > > In Scala at least, I'm finding almost the entire community still think of themselves as Java programmers. Java nowadays is first and foremost a platform, and you're still programming against Java even if you're not not using Java-the-language.
Java in this sense is about web application servers, and netty, and joda-time, and JDBC, and maven repositories, and the memory model. All stuff that can't be trivially ported to run on parrot or .NET. What Java *isn't* about here is default mutable collections, and use-site variance, and get/set property accessors, and lambdas being delayed at the same time as you gain the ability to put underscores in numbers, or any of the other delays and setbacks that cause a project like Lombok to even be needed in the first place! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
