Even Sun Can't Use Java

cowmix writes "It turns out that Sun does not eat its own dog food. Specifically, this internal memo from Sun strongly suggests that Java should not be used for Sun's internal projects. More interesting still, they go on to state which other languages fullfil Java's goals better than Java does itself. Finally, the memo states Sun's own Solaris is the cause of many of Java's woes. Yikes."

Comments

Re:It would be interesting to find...

[kryonD]

It boggles the mind that after half a dozen years of Java, Sun has not yet moved their default desktop over to Java GUI apps.

I have to ask....why? How many times do you have to visit a web site that gives you 15 popup windows complaining about script errors in IE? Just to load netscape and have the page work fine, or vice versa. Who here hasn't had to download an older version of the JRE because you've found a program that doesn't work on the newer versions. JAVA isn't, nor has it ever been, platform independant. It continues to be unstable on more platforms than just solaris and really doesn't provide that much of an advantage over ANSI C/C++. Yeah, it was cool back in the days before DHTML, Flash, and XML. But now it offers very little additional functionality.

I may be commiting a sin to say this on slashdot, but just because it's free doesn't mean it's worth using.

Re:Perhaps you should read the letter b4 posting i

[StuffYourReligion]

Ha, I'd say you didn't read the article very well yourself!

Their primary concerns may be about Solaris 7 or 8, but they certainly have more fundamental concerns regarding Java. For example, about modules:

Examples include modules that used to be called Swing, RTI, IDL, JSSE and JAAS. These are all good things that should be part of Java. Our concern is that these are not separable modules which can evolve as requirements change.

I am tempted to quote the rest of item #3 of "Defining the Java Problem" for you here, but that would merely annoy those who have actually read the article rather than skimming it. These are not Solaris-only issues, are they?

Their fundamental reasoning for writing this memo may have been concerns with the Solaris implementation of Java, but I think they raise some very good points w.r.t. Java in general, and whether or not you wish to debate virtue of their complaints, statements such as "The Java system for evolving the interface (deprecation) does not serve production software very well" clearly are not Solaris-only issues.

It would seem to me that they talk mostly about Solaris because they are Sun employees primarily concerned with the success of Sun and its Solaris platform. That makes sense. Clearly they also suggest that the Solaris JVMs in particular have had inexcusable problems and a lack of support and responsible managment, but your statement that "what they were really complaining about was Solaris 7 and 8" is a rather broad generalization, wouldn't you say?

As I have been programming primarily in C for the last year, I have not struggled much with the idiosyncracies of Java for a while. Don't get me wrong. I love Java. But I think this article raises some really good issues, and honestly, makes me worry about the fate of Java when its creator can't even make it an acceptable language platform for their own internal application development.

Solaris blows as a desktop

[autopr0n]

My school recently replaced a bunch of dual boot windows/linux machines with some Solaris workstations. All I can say is "What the fuck?" The damn things are running CDE for gods sake.

I was waiting in line the other day to use a 'burning station' where you can get CDs made for site-licensed software, and I tried using one of the machines. It was ridiculous. The only browser they had was Netscape, and Java didn't even work! I mean, this is a sun machine!

Solaris may make a good server OS, but for a desktop OS I'd rather stick with windows or Linux.

why not FPL?

[axxackall]

Why everyone compare Java to Python? Why Many other languages are basically ignored? I wonder if Sun considered Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml and Mozart.

Lisp has one of the best object-oriented paradigm implementation, Meta-Object Protocol among languages with both scripting and bytecompiling capabilities.

Scheme has been proved as a good language for GUI and configuration: GIMP, Sawfish, TeXmacs.

OCaml has all the power as Lips, just in syntax conviniect for many Java/C-poisoned brains to read faster. No wonder there are many real-world applications on it.

Haskell... I just love how it demonstrates that OOP is not everything (and even not enough) :)

Sun works for telecom industry - why not consider Erlang?

And don't ignore Mozart - it's multi-paradigm pradigm might be just what we all will thing as the best in 3-5 years.

The list is not complete, of course. And it's inspired by Functional Programming.

My main point here is: each of above languages, would it be in hands of Sun marketed instead of Java (with all that money invested to), would have quality of implementation much better than Java.

In fact, I am impressed how such poorly designed language as Java succeed so far on the market. It wouldn't without so much money behind. And without so many classes written by Sun to compensate the poor design of the core language itself.

Would Sun invest so much efforts and money to FP language then the result would be much better. Because quality is why FP matters.

Re:Closed-mindedness

[Loundry]

Just a quick question. You're alleging that HIV != AIDS. Now, doesn't the burden of proof rest firmly upon your shoulders?

No. The burden rests on those who originally stated that "HIV==AIDS." I'm not required to disprove it. Otherwise, they could claim that AIDS is caused by sunspots and then say, "The burden of proof falls on YOU because you are claiming that "sunspots!=AIDS." I refuse to blindly accept their assertions even in light of their billions of dollars.

Re:Closed-mindedness

[Loundry]

First: Touchy, Touchy. You're seeing a lot in my post that isn't there,

Like what, specifically?

and you missed my polite tips of the hat. Now that's telling

Let me translate what you've written: "You don't realize that I'm being a lot more gracious to you than you deserve." Did I read you right?

Advice: try being polite. It'll keep you from being written off as a crackpot who subscribes to a far-out conspiracy theory.

I apologize, I am talking about something about which I am passionate, and I don't always keep my cool. I will say here that the way I've treated you is much more polite than the way I've been treated for having the audacity to doubt the Sacred Writings.

I didn't answer the one question I cared to address directly because I thought it was ill-formed.

In other words, you don't even care to address the other questions. Case closed, end of discussion. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?

Again, I'll grant that there well may be political and monetary agendas behind the AIDS research funding. However, it's a rather extraordinary (and unbelievable) to claim that the number of AIDS sufferers, however, is a "handful" -- even if you don't believe that AIDS is actually caused by HIV.

Why is it extraordinary or unbelievable? We first have to come to an agreement as to what "AIDS" is before the discussion can have any meaning.

And yes, anyone who let that stand would be letting you "get away" with a rather disingenuous statement, unless you've got some rather extraordinary evidence to support that.

It is the "HIV==AIDS" supporters who need the evidence, not I. Do you know that there are cases of children being born HIV+ when both of their parents are HIV-? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not. Do you know there are HIV+ children whose HIV just magically "goes away" as they get older? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not.

So essentially, I responded to your question with a question: what makes you think that there are only a "handful" of aids sufferers?

I was speaking in terms of proportions. What is the number of AIDS cases in the USA? Compare that to cases of heart disease and cancer and maybe you'll understand why I used the term "handful," particularly in light of the massive funding that AIDS research receives.

I also granted you that the amount of funding AIDS get is disproportionate to the sufferers.

How "disproportionate" is it? Compare it to funding for cancer, Alzheimers, aging, and heart disease.

My point in saying that "diseases that attack the immune system are scary" was to say that the concept of a virulent pathogen that can directly attack and destroy the immune system is pretty startling, as much or more so than other pathogens that merely overwhelm the system, or chronic lifestyle related diseases.

This is a subjective statement. A disease that destroys your heart is just as lethal as a disease that destroys your immune system (albeit indirectly).

Is it more important than cancer research? Understanding filoviruses like Marburgh and Ebola? Heart disease, which kills many times more than the above? Automobile safety research? I don't know.

You write, "I don't know," but your words indicate that you think it's more important. It's at least more "scary" than those other diseases. I propose that diseases should receive funding based on their affect on human lives, on their costs to our health care system, and on how contagious they are. I'm not trying to oversimplify as much as I'm trying to show that AIDS gets more money that it deserves by almost any account, and that at least looks suspicious.

You're more likely to want to fund AIDS, autism, cancer, heart disease, polio, whatever if someone close to you has been touched by it.

I agree -- not that it has anything to do with whether or not HIV causes AIDS, or what the definition of "AIDS" is.

I'd think most people would be open to the idea progressive immune system dysfunction could have roots other than HIV, if you can provide convincing evidence for an alternative theory.

The evidence is there. Malnutrition and persistant, heavy drug abuse are both known to weaken the immune system. The side effects of AZT mirror those of AIDS. The problem is not that there are other explanations for AIDS, but instead that the public has had no exposure to any other explanations (the government has been unrelenting with its "HIV==AIDS" propaganda) and that any scientist who deigns doubt the theory is punished for it.

characterizing the number of sufferers as a "handful" sure looks like hyperbole at best

I retract the "handful" statement. Can we discuss some of the other issues? The fact that I said it has made you want to criticize me instead of discussing HIV and AIDS, and that doesn't get my position anywhere.

Re:Closed-mindedness

[Loundry]

They aren't rapidly silenced; they were repeatedly rebutted over the years.

I agree; I spoke out of turn. Though "dismissed," I think, is more accurate than "rebutted." I visited the link you posted and it contains statements like these: "These drugs do tend to depress all lymphocyte functions, but long-term users who are not HIV-positive show no signs of long-term declines in CD4 lymphocytes in all the comparative studies which have been performed (Schechter)." Well, which studies, and what, specifically do they say? If you read the Phase II AZT trials, then there is some startling revelations about what those "studies" showed.

Furthermore, Peter Duesberg and others have extensively argued their case in high-impact scientific magazines (Nature, Science, PNAS...).

Again, you are correct. This does not save them from being demonized. There is a quote which I will have to dig deep to find where a AIDS official basically stated, "If we can just through a few of these HIV deniers in jail then we could stop this movement really quickly."

Yes, there are other conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. "What is unusual and new about AIDS, and requires that we classify it as a new syndrome, is the development of immune deficiency as the result of the loss of CD4 lymphocytes in people who would not normally be expected to develop immune deficiency"

So does this mean that we've tested millions of Africans for the loss of CD4 lyphocytes and thus determined that it is AIDS and certainly not the other conditions which are causing their immune systems to weaken? What about the US sufferers of AIDS? The HIV test only tests for "HIV antibodies" and does not measure the level of CD4 lymphocytes.

What are the pandemic patterns you refer to? Some background on your side would be useful too.

I'm arguing that for a disease to be epidemic (which I understand as a worldwide epidemic) then it needs to follow certain criteria. The pattern of AIDS differs widely from Africa to USA to the UK. Does it meet the criteria of pandemic? AIDS was called an "epidemic" in the early 80s in the USA and effectively started the AIDS panic. The number of AIDS cases in the USA hardly makes AIDS an "epidemic," but massive funding ensued nonetheless.

HIV has been found in all the risk groups in which AIDS has appeared

Again, you are correct. If I may backpedal, the number of AIDS cases outside of "high risk groups" is negligable.

and no other factor has been shown to be associated with the distinctive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes in the same way

Again, who's doing the testing for "CD4 lymphocytes"? And who are the subjects?

According to this argument, it is a coincidence that HIV appeared at the same time in these different risk groups, and a coincidence that the presence or absence of HIV can be matched so closely with the development of AIDS in the different risk groups.

What HIV? I'm not convinced it exists.

However, those who accept the association between HIV and AIDS point out that HIV has failed to spread widely amongst heterosexuals in the developed world due to a lack of pathways for the virus.

Why, because heterosexuals don't have multiple sex partners and don't share needles? That's a weak argument.

It doesn't care of course, but cultural differences will naturally cause differences in the epidemics.

Like which cultural differences? People all over the world have sex.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions.

I don't know what a PCR test is, so I can't verify the validity of your claim. I notice that you admit to some exceptions. If these exceptions lead to a false positive, does that mean that the patient will be led to take highly toxic AIDS treatments?

(Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).

1. Do you have a URL for this study?

2. Do you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to anyone who can isolate the virus?

Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable

98% reliability applies to both those who are HIV- and HIV+. What happens to false positives? They are told they have a fatal disease and must take toxic AIDS therapies until they die from them. There is lots of criticism about the HIV test. Have you read it?

Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells.

Is this referring to "viral load"?

As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals

I'm glad that you admit to the "toxic side effects" of "antiretroviral drugs" (I believe we were talking about AZT). What are these "toxic side effects," in particular? Isn't one of them "wasting"? Wasn't wasting an alleged side effect of AIDS?

In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo.

John Lauritsen used FOIA to read the FDA research about the AZT trials. You can find them here and here. I really dislike saying, "Just go read this paper," but I really want to hear your take on his findings.

Not true according to what I read, it occurs mostly in men.

Be more specific. What are the rates of KS among gay men who use poppers as compared to other men?

Because HIV is spread primarily through sex or by the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles during injection-drug use, it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men

What is surprising is that AIDS cases have remained confined to those high-risk groups despite the apocolyptic warnings of the HIV==AIDS industry that "everyone is at risk."

The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women.

Estimates.

In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men.

Why would the patterns in Africa be so different from those in the US?

The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.

You didn't answer my question. The question was this: "What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?"

I didn't try to demonize you and I didn't treat you badly;

I disagree.

you just like to play the victim.

And this is a demonstration of your high level of respect for me, by essentially calling me a whiner?

I found the "written by a bunch of crackpots and loons" bit particularly funny because you are the only one using those words.

Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. The reason I use those words is because that is how I am treated by most everyone when I want to discuss my point of view. No one wants to talk about my points, they would rather mock and insult me. I get the same response when I discuss my skeptical views of Christianity with Christians: mockery and invective.

You also seem to believe you know what I think, as you state several times when that is obviously false.

This after you accuse me of playing the victim. How would you know that I was deliberately playing the victim unless you knew what I was thinking? If I've said something that is out of line, please point it out to me and I will retract it.

In the epitome of righteous indignation, you say "And I get a "people like you" comment". That was actually a compliment to your skeptic attitude.

I believe you are genuinely pleased by the fact that I am skeptical. I also believe your comment was condescending.

It would be nice if you would just take the time to read what it says rather than assuming you're being attacked.

I'm not assuming aything, Mister "you like to play the victim." I don't think you believe I have anything of value to add to this discussion. You find me "funny" (an attempt to humiliate) and here you accuse me of being hasty and presumptuous.

I'm looking forward to hear from you again, if you can drop the poor victim attitude and stick to the arguments.

I'll drop anything that is out of line. Will you also drop your condescending and belittling attitude? It won't win any points with me.

I will add here that your treatment of me, while still disrespectful, is better than that of most people I've debated on this issue. You've pointed out several times in which I've stated things that are inaccurate. Even if our opinions are unchanged after our discussion, I don't think that I will walk away empty-handed.

Re:HIV does equal AIDS. Jeasus!

[Loundry]

Open mindedness is one thing. You are something else. Please stop helping me.

As usual, the response is mockery and invective, not dialog.

With regard to your sig, I happen to know some people who do HIV research. The hard kind, not the bullshit public health kind. They are not liable to be swayed by offers of money or other blandishments from the Eeeevile drug companies. And they are far from stupid.

And I happen to know some people who know that HIV is an orchestrated lie. See, I can make unsubstantiantiated claims, too!

The arguments cited by your web site are unscientific crap, and are getting a bunch of innocent people killed in Africa.

Yet you fail to indicate which arguments are "crap," you just dismiss them all with a sweep of your hand.

Evidence? There's a measurable, linear relationship between HIV virus load and the onset of full blown AIDS.

Are you discussing so-called "viral load"? There is quite a bit of criticism on this subject:

here
here

AIDS appears in the presence of HIV, does not appear in its absence.

You are merely quoting the definition of AIDS. How do you explain an HIV+ child born to two HIV- parents? How do you explain HIV+ children whose HIV mysteriously "goes away" as they get older?

You can even infect experimental animals and they get it. Transgenic mice, for example.

Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Have other primates ever gotten HIV/AIDS?

That is known as Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity. Look it up, it is the method used to identify and isolate pathogens so drugs can be made to fight them.

Has HIV been isolated? If so, who isolated it?

If your pet web site has anything substantive enough to pay attention to, you'll be able to prove at least one of the postulates

And interesting strategy: Find some criteria unrelated to the criticism and then declare that as reason enough to dismiss all the criticism as irrelevant. Furthermore, the web site is merely a collection of articles that have been written by many different scientists and journalists for many years. Your calling it my "pet" web site is an attempt to paint me as single-source.

If not, time to re-adjust your open mind.

I think, instead, that you should open yours. You've stated in no such uncertain terms that dissenting views of HIV/AIDS are beneath your contempt. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?

Remember, if you can't measure it, it ain't science.

I agree! I do not think that "HIV==AIDS" is science. I think it is money.