Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-05-02 Thread Ken McNeil
--- Maksim Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off I want to say that my previous posts were > done late on friday, > which is probably not the best time to write > level-headed posts so I > apologise if my previous posts were too emotional. I know the feeling :^) > On the point of standardi

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-05-02 Thread Maksim Lin
First off I want to say that my previous posts were done late on friday, which is probably not the best time to write level-headed posts so I apologise if my previous posts were too emotional. Ken McNeil wrote: > > >Exactly competition is good. But I'm afraid a differ with you Ken on > >what com

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Ken McNeil
First off you have taken my intentions to an extreme. I only wish to discuss these issues openly and in no way am I attempting to create anything. And also you have highlighted some things in my original post that are not truly significant to my message. I will point this out below. > > How i

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Ken McNeil
>Exactly competition is good. But I'm afraid a differ with you Ken on >what competition, I would prefer just competing implmentations, not >competing platforms (though even that in some ways is a good idea, eg. >one OS is not a good idea). You're right on both, within the Java(c) world competing

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Michael Emmel
Matt Welsh wrote: > I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one > thing. > > Sun has clearly recognized some of the advantages of the Open Source model, > which is the entire reason why they have adopted the 'Sun Community Source > License' for a large number of their

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Alex Pozgaj
openly and in no way am I attempting > to create anything. You gave this thread the title "Sun Bashing 2", so I might have read what I expected to read, instead of what you realy wrote. Sorry for that. > And > also you have highlighted some things in my original post >

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Robb Shecter
Hi, Interesting conversation. I vaguely disagree with your overall sentiment, but the following prodded me out of lurker state. :) Ken McNeil wrote: > > >Do you REALLY want to make Java into the horrible mess C++ is today? > > Okay, I will substantiate this... > > 1. In the spirit of Darwinis

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Uncle George
For myself, as the lone alpha-linux porter, is that the new model is very different from the non-commercial lic agreement. With that agreement I can attempt to make the JAVA JDK work & distribute to any and all folks that are interested - FOR NO CHARGE of course. The New Open license appears to cu

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Maksim Lin
Ken McNeil wrote: > > I have been programming in Java for over a year, using it mainly because of > its technical merits but also because it seemed to be the "anti-Microsoft". > >From the beginning I had the utmost respect for Sun and their mission to > build Java into the greatest thing since sl

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Maksim Lin
Ken McNeil wrote: > > >I'll second you on the bugs issue and the problem with Suns 1001 API's > >approach. However to be fair you probably picked a bad eg. with > >parametric types as Sun has just put up a proposal for them. > > I thank you for pointing this out, but they should have responded

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Alex Pozgaj
Ken McNeil writes: > >I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one > >thing. > > How is this "flaim bait"? I can only tell you how I understood it: basically just like an unjustified and unfair rant. Such posts are mostly seen as flame baits, because they almost n

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Maksim Lin
Matt Welsh wrote: > > I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one > thing. It seemed likely to stirr up discussion but I don't think it was inflammatory either. > Sun has clearly recognized some of the advantages of the Open Source model, > which is the entire reas

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Maksim Lin
Ken McNeil wrote: > > >I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one > >thing. > > How is this "flaim bait"? This is a topic that has been thrown around by > plenty, and unless you work for Sun I see no reason why this should seem > offensive to you. > > >This link is

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Ken McNeil
>I have mixed feelings (to say the least) about parametric/generic stuff >in java so I will not comment further on this. What are these mixed feelings you're referring to? At one point in the past I thought generic programming was only necessary if you didn't have a common base class, like in C

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Maksim Lin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think it also worth mentioning that Java is barely 2 years old. Just because > we are used to working with developed languages like C, C++ or whatever else > tickles your fancy - that doesn't mean we can forcefully matriculate Java to > suit our time frame. I agree

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Gerald de Jong
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Maksim Lin wrote: > As for a "java killer", I don't see one coming along, but then again I'm > sure most people didn't see Java coming. But really I don't see how our > lack of support for Sun will bring this about anymore then our support > will prevent it. As I said before

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Ken McNeil
>first I'd like to appologize for some of the comments I made >- I'm aware now that they could be understood as much more >offensive than I intended them to be. Good. I felt that you brought up some good points (in between the emotional sections) and I wish to keep this discussion going. > > >

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-30 Thread Matt Welsh
Maksim Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This I'm afraid makes no sense to me. How does one splinter java by > standardising it ? I'm not saying that I agree with this, either --- I'm only conveying what I believe to be Sun's motivations for maintaining control over Java. mdw -

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-29 Thread Ken McNeil
>I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one >thing. How is this "flaim bait"? This is a topic that has been thrown around by plenty, and unless you work for Sun I see no reason why this should seem offensive to you. >This link is the paper 'Sun Community Source Li

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-29 Thread Ken McNeil
>I'll second you on the bugs issue and the problem with Suns 1001 API's >approach. However to be fair you probably picked a bad eg. with >parametric types as Sun has just put up a proposal for them. I thank you for pointing this out, but they should have responded earlier. By not implementing t

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-29 Thread Matt Welsh
I usually can't stand flame bait like this but I wanted to point out one thing. Sun has clearly recognized some of the advantages of the Open Source model, which is the entire reason why they have adopted the 'Sun Community Source License' for a large number of their products -- including the JD

Re: Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-29 Thread jstorrier
I think it also worth mentioning that Java is barely 2 years old. Just because we are used to working with developed languages like C, C++ or whatever else tickles your fancy - that doesn't mean we can forcefully matriculate Java to suit our time frame. I honestly believe that Sun is doing the

Sun Bashing 2

1999-04-29 Thread Ken McNeil
I have been programming in Java for over a year, using it mainly because of its technical merits but also because it seemed to be the "anti-Microsoft". >From the beginning I had the utmost respect for Sun and their mission to build Java into the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yet, lately I