Slashdot Mirror
Beyond An Open Source Java
Karma Sucks writes "LinuxToday is featuring a intriguing article on why Sun should open source Java, as a stronger followup to the recent ESR saga that was reported here. The writer notes: 'Sun needs to do some radical things to improve its chances of survival, and all of them involve Open Source in some form or the other.' One thing the article fails to mention is the threat of Mono, which should be of special interest to Sun, with its vested interest in GNOME."
Incompatibility would run rampant. My java apps barely work for my phone as it is.
I think open sourcing it is ok, but they should do all the work on it internally and not let any 3rd party distribute their own Java.
When you have a cross platform interpreter, you need to make sure there is consistency. For example, Microsoft JVM ruined it for alot of people since developers will forget to debug it on Suns JVM, causing huge incompatibility issues that they blamed on Sun.
If you think Java is in the enterprise because it is portable, you are greatly mistaken. There are some stuff in Java that makes it a great tool for the job, and portability is only one of them: Portability, Reflection, RMI, Proxies, J2EE, ... And I did forget a lot in the process.
Qt and GTK are not even languages, what the hell are you talking about? You are comparing an enterprise level language with a GUI library! Java is not Swing!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'm not certain this is a move that should be made. All we need are 18 different 'forks' in the java tree like certain other open source projects. I can just see it now "No no, you need BobJavaVM-1.43.2.43 - it won't run with FastJava V 2"
...is that Sun allows Java to wallow in limbo until its development becomes unsustainable and people start using other languages and development environments like .NET, and then make it open source because it became a black hole for them.
.NET as a universal development language. You can bet diamonds to dollars that Microsoft will never open source their version though.
I mean, Sun could still have a vested interest in an open source Java and still derive revenue from custom design services and support while displacing the Beast. It isn't even like the implementation is a trade secret. Heck, the Beast has developed Java bytecode interpreters in the past. But the Beast would love to displace Java with
Hence, Sun has a great opportunity here. Will they see it?
Microsoft effectively broke Java by extending it to allow the implimention of native windows widgets that wouldn't run cross platform and since Sun owns Java they were able to sue, and win. I think if Java were open source MS would be free to break it again. It's an old argument and one that we have heard over and over again but it has staying power, I believe, because it is true.
To borrow a phrase from John Stossel: Give me a break!
.Net for that matter. It's a simple matter of resources.
While Mono is cool project and, like many developers, one I've been following since it's inception, I don't see it ever overtaking Java, or
> > Which often benchmark faster than natively implemented code.
>
>You do realize that this is impossible, right?
What makes you say that? In fact, the original poster is quite correct. The JVM *can* generate faster code. You know how? By doing runtime optimizations. Compilers have to optimize for what *might* be the best performance profile at runtime. Also, they can only compile for the lowest common processor. (e.g. A pentium II) The Hotspot Java VM can optimize based on how the code is currently being used, undo an optimization if it starts slowing things down, and use processor specific instructions! Natively compiled code just can't beat that.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Perl and Python are hardly competitors to Java, so warning Sun about Java's impending loss of market share to these two scripting languages is laughable."
How so?
The term "scripting language" doesn't have the name meaning it used to; especially where Perl and Python are concerned. They both get compiled to an intermediate form and executed...just like Java. The only difference (other than the internals of the runtime) is that the Java's development "model" is closely related to it's static typing; i.e., you manually compile your code into a binary before executing. Trying to discount Perl and Python by calling them scripting languages is silly. The real issue is what works as an enterprise development platform, not the "taxonomy" of the language. As far as platforms go, Python has got a pretty good thing in Zope/Plone etc. And both Perl and Python have libraries for damn near everything you'd want to do. J2EE may be more prevalent at the moment, but in terms of bang for buck Python and Perl present some interesting alternatives in the long term.
As soon as Sun GPL'd Java, it would start to diverge from Sun's commercial Java. Sun would not be able to incorporate changes made under the GPL into their corporate version. Sure, they could maintain their own "official" GPL version, but the dual license argument is complete rubbish. Java wouldn't die, but Sun would lose most or all control over it.
[J2EE] has replaced CORBA as the way to go for
.NET is satisfactory in this environment.
large, distributed enterprise apps
Has J2EE replaced CORBA in those scenarios where either the client or server is NOT written in Java?
One of the facts of life in the enterprise is that it is heterogeneous in terms of platforms, operating systems and (maybe) network technologies. Neither J2EE nor
Last I read is that Sun doesn't have a problem with open source implementations of Java, is just that Sun isn't doing one.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
I'm only replying lest the parent might be modded up.
As a professional Java developer who works primarily in Eclipse, Java is not your problem here.
Are you using a legacy app based around AWT? Then your GUI will most likely be annoyingly limited (with a couple of exceptions on MacOS X).
Are you using a GUI app using the Swing toolkit? Okay, yes, that's going to be slow -- I'll give you that. But that's similar to saying "Linux is ugly! Just look at (GTK|Qt|Tk|whatever)!"
Seriously, I'm tired of reading this drech on Slashdot. A properly-implemented Swing is reasonably fast (see MacOS X for an example), but unfortunately the Windows implementation isn't one. Before slamming the language, however, try changing toolkits -- I recommend SWT, as used in Eclipse.
While Java stays Sun's closed-source product, Sun retains control over it. Releasing it open-source would mean relinquishing that control forever. Imagine, if you will, the overthrow of an essentially benevolent dictator followed by a less desirable character seizing power.
The questions Sun needs to ask itself are (1) whether or not Java is ready for that -- or is it more likely that differing implementations would lead to fragmentation, and thus nullify the whole point of Java?; and (2) if Java is ready to go open-source {and I personally believe it is}, what would be the best licence to ensure against fragmentation whilst not putting off purists?
All these things being said, Java is only a programming language -- a means to an end. Programming languages come and go. There is no reason why another contender should not arise to solve the same problems for which Java was invented, and eventually displace Java. Mono may be that, of course. It is just as likely that something totally new could arrive on the scene and change the whole picture.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The IBM PC was a hit from the start. Apple never had "all the market share" outside of the home computer market.
Nor did IBM ever license their PC architecture. The PC was built mostly on off-the-shelf hardware. Clone manufacturers just reverse-engineered the BIOS.
Later, IBM tried to regain a proprietary hold over the PC market by putting a bunch of non-standard stuff in the PS/2, like the Microchannel architecture, which never took off because none of the clone manufacturers bought into it.
There can be no doubt that IBM wanted the total market control.. indeed, they've been playing that game for over 30 years in the Mainframe market.
No, it doesn't. The second piece of code will not run on a 386 like you said it must.
Of course it won't! That's the point. The Hotspot compiler will generate the second piece of code because it notices you're using a Pentium Pro. If the JVM was running on a 386, it would generate the first bit of code, just like the C compiler.
Also, GNU GCC compiles code for processors like i686 that still executes on i386 by not using the i686-only instructions.
As much as I wish they did, not all OSes use ELF binaries. Besides, generating binaries for multiple processors creates a great deal of bloat in the binaries. Not to mention that the JVM will be able to optimize for future processers (when they come out) while the GCC binaries will only be optimized through the current processor.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Well, you're right, but there tools that do profiling for C/C++. This thread should rather be named "(JIT) Bytecode vs native code"
.NET, but from what I heard, multiple frontends for arbitrary languages are possible.
Java".
The front-end languages C++ or java don't really do much about the perfomance (except that you can manually optimize things you can't do in java because of missing pointers etc.) (*)
IMHO, java bytecode suffers from the following things (and so do the users of java programs) - [they are the reasons,I think, why all java programs I've seen so far (and all the not-for-java-crafted benchmarks) are running considerably slower than C/C++]:
Technical:
- Java bytecode is low level enough to lose certain optimizations (JITs have to apply decompilation techniques) which you can do in C/C++. You can of course compile Java natively (e.g. with gcj), yes. But then, you lose portability.
- Java bytecode is not low-level enough that you can take advantage of the features of the particular hardware. Java's ints are 32 bit. What if you run your numerical java code on 64 bit machines?
Political:
- The java bytecode format is so specific that it is impossible or rather hard (there was once a java backend for egcs, admitted) to get other languages like C/C++ to run on it. Why does one have to chose the platform java with the language java? I don't know
I'd like to have a VM for C++ *and* Java. That would surely rock and end some of the flamewars.
(*)- The often stated security argument (java has no pointers and is therefore inherently more secure than C++) would fall with C++ on a VM.
Its full of contradictions and silly mistakes.
.Net be a threat when Microsoft is struggling (making a loss!) on the server side? Unless the Mono folks unwisely give Microsoft an escape route, the eventual rise of Linux on the desktop will squash .Net flat. This rise is starting: I develop websites for international use. If I deploy anything that requires Microsoft on the client (as do .Net apps), I soon get enough complaints to convince me otherwise!
J2EE is small and easy, not large and expensive. Anyone can build JSP pages or use Servlets on a free but high-quality App server like Tomcat - this may not involve Enterprise Java Beans (the least used aspect of J2EE), but its still J2EE and it costs nothing.
How can
Why does Java need to be Open Source to ride the Linux revolution? High-quality Java VMs are ready for Linux.
Java is the most widely requested language for development, and its use is still rapidly expanding. Sun has nothing to fear.
There is now a very effective non-proprietary persistence solution - Java Data Objects (JDO). This typically requires no more than a couple of supporting files in each application no matter how many classes you wish to store. Its far more powerful than EJB, with a portable query language and inheritance. There are many high-quality implementations of the javax.jdo.*
classes.
Doesn't follow. Open source or not, it would be trivial for them to use some feature which is only available on Windows. Sun can have all the source code they want, but if it can't run on other platforms (without effectively porting chunks of Windows too), then they're stuffed.
Open Source is wonderful for apps with a known interface. But Java isn't an app; it's a platform. One of its greatest advantages is its platform neutrality. While having a single company like Sun in charge of it may prevent Joe Bloggs from adding his whizzy new feature, it also prevents M$ from doing the same, which IMO is far more important. I think Sun have steered a fine line between locking Java up so tightly that no-one feels safe using, and opening it up so much that no-one can choose which of the multiple subtly-incompatible versions to use.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Take a look at .NET
.NET with all it's propietary extensions to the standard. The standard itself is gonne mean nothing.
IT has open ECMA specification - and Microsoft made a great P on that.
But the real programs will be made upon MS
Projects like www.DotGNU.org understands it well, so they are running behind (and trying to chase) the very MS libraries, not only the standards.
And Microsoft said that it is their strategy - add new technologies so fast, that competitors have no time to invent their own one.
Why? Well remember JVM and how Microsoft corrupted the compatiablity? Java's goal is to be cross platform and to do so means there needs to be a centralized development effort. If suddenly there are 50 versions of J2EE on the market, each with its unquie traits, which do I run? How do I know that the app I program will work on the others? If it doesn't run on everything, hasn't the point of Java been defeated?
I once worked for a company that was looking to port some of its Solaris & AIX Applications to Linux, but 3 months into the project, the question became what distros to support. They tried porting their application with some modifications. Got it to run fine on RedHat 5.x (it was a while ago), but then it took some playing around to work with SuSE and we never did get it to compile on Slackware. When they said they planned to support RedHat default only, meaning if system admins were using a tweaked box or kernal, we would not offer support. Needless to say, potential clients scoffed at the idea and after 6 months they decided that the Linux Market wasn't worth the hassle until some standards had emerged. This is why a lot of developers won't port to linux, especially desktop applications: too many variations.
I see the same potential of Java, to become slpit into so many forks, that it defeats the purpose in the first place.
I like opensource applications, but I don't think that Opensource is always the answer. Another good example is a good friend that is developing a support ticket application for the company he works for. I asked him, "Isn't there several GPL'd apps outhere that could installed within a couple hours?" He responded of course, but he put it this way: "I like to use my own code and not other peoples. Its a lot less messy that way." and I see his point.
IF it wasn't for opensource, I would have never learned how to program in PHP, PERL, and various SQL databases, it was a great learning tool, but like every tool, there is the correct tool for the job. I say this as I switched from Linux to Macintosh almost two years ago now and I am willing to pay for the luxury of having everything work. Just like we now pay for managed instead of self-managed servers for our business. There is only 3 of us and we now have enough business that its costing us more to run our own servers than to pay a little extra for managed services where the keep up with the updates and such.
All I am saying is that projects have goals. Sometimes Opensource meets those goals, but its not a cure all. The beauty is that we have the choice of using Opensource or to use a propritary solution.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Some benefits:
1. Tomorrow, Sun might decide to charge for a JVM. Then you will be screwed.
2. They might decide to drop Java, closing all future to all your beautiful programs.
3. What if Sun decide not to support your favorite platform? (Say BeOS, or Linux on PS/2, or HP48SX...)
With open-source, this is less likely to happen - though still possible. We can imagine for Java that we will always have some geeks ready to give a hand even if Sun dropped the whole thing.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Sun has copyrights on one of many JVMs, which is closed source, and they control the name "Java" by holding the trademark. This is all, and this is not enough to effectively control the use of the language, even if they wanted to screw customers.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.