Slashdot Mirror
Java: One Step Closer To Open Source
Ritalin16 writes "Sun Microsystems on Monday intends to celebrate the 10th anniversary of its Java programming language by sharing the proprietary source code for several key Java applications used by corporate customers. Sun officials believe that by making the source codes open to developers, they will spur more involvement and use of Java-based applications."
Java: One Step Closer To Open Source
*sigh* Sun is already as open as they're going to go with Java by releasing it under the Java Research License. Now Sun has never complained about or hawked Open Source JVMs, but neither have they been too keen on helping out projects who bite their hands. As a result, the project to watch is the Apache Harmony Project. Given that Apache maintains a close relationship with Sun, hasn't burned their bridges, and has a good track record for completing very complex software, there's a good chance that the Apache JVM will quickly exceed Kaffe and GCJ.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If Sun really wanted to be helpful they could forget the application server and really forget the source, and just concentrate on making a less restrictive BINARY license for redistributors such as linux distributions. Java is being held back in the absence of something like Harmony, and that's just absolutely rediculous when the problem would be so easy to fix. Sun needs to come to terms with reality and realize that they need an installed base, not the other way around.
While true that Java isn't cool, I believe your reasons are wrong.
Java requires users to install a massive runtime evironment or SDK just to run Java applications. Trying to get this setup and working is annoying at best.
Java has fairly large overhead due to the massive runtime environment mentioned above.
Performance-wise Java is not bad in some areas but lack of control of certain things can prevent many types of applications from even being possible in Java (if you want usable performance).
Many of the early Java APIs were just broken and it took so long to get them fixed (due to Sun controlling everything) that many people gave up and moved on. This burned many people in the early days (myself included; on 3 very large projects back in the mid-90's).
In a lot of areas Java is simply too object-oriented. Many of the APIs are annoying to use because of this. This is the same thing that killed SmallTalk and Objective-C. Being forced tightly into one paradigm is too limiting (future language authors take note!).
The "safeness" of Java is an illusion that caught many people off guard. What they learned is that although it prevents a certain class of errors (memory leaks; memory smashing), if you program fails it still crashes. Bad logic is bad logic no matter how "safe" the language is.
I will tell you why Java "Isn't Cool"... because while it may be "Write once, Run Anywhere", how the HELL do you expect an end user to run JavaApp123, when all they download is a .class file? Why in GODS NAME does Java NOT USE Native Widgets? I mean, I can spot a Java application light years away. It doesn't integrate cleanly in ANY regard. My quote "Sure, you can run it, but why would you want to?"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Sun's app server is definitely not new and immature. It's based off iPlanet AS which if anything is older than Weblogic and Websphere. A better reason is that BEA (with Tuxedo) and IBM both have substantial experience selling app servers in general, and they know the enterprise software sales playbook by heart because they helped write it.
Sun, OTOH, was and remains clueless about marketing software*. (Their latest foray, per-employee licensing for the Java Desktop System and the Java Enterprise Stack, got a good deal of buzz but it's far from being an MS- or IBM-killer yet.)
Go somewhere random
I think what made Java uncool was the development of hundreds of clunky apps written in java for the cross platform benefit but left with their ugly windows interface. Think Azureus.
I have been a Java developer since year dot (well it feels like it) and I can't understand the fuss about having an open source Java. Most of the libraries that I use (in fact all I think) are fully open source along with the application server the only bit that isn't is open is the core libraries but these are given away for free and I have never run into a license issue.
The only thing that I would like in terms of openness is a packaging license that allows the registered linux distributions to repackage the JVM because current installation methods are a pain (I'm on Debian which probably makes it worse that on a lot of other distros).
Other than that I like the stability that is granted by having one company at the wheel. If Sun decided to loose the plot and start imposing strange conditions on VM useage I am sure an open source VM would appear the day after tomorrow. Until then though I will keep buy as many free VMs as I can.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
WTF is that supposed to mean? I assume that you're trying to flame other Slashdotters for being too optimistic about Sun open-sourcing Java. I don't think your analogy holds up at all, though.
It has always been the case that one could open the hood of a car (be it Ford, GM, Toyota, or other) and pull hoses, reroute wires, change belts, or otherwise modify the engine mechanics. Ford may not encourage this with an ad campaign of, "Buy our cars because you can take them apart and reconfigure them!" but it is still the case that this is possible.
The only way I can make your analogy make sense is by assuming you meant that the open-sourcing of Java would make no difference. One can, in fact, write her or his own set of classes, or even VM, and run Java programs using it. Sun does not currently run an ad campaign to the effect of, "Use Java because you can rewrite the VM!" but it is still the case that one can.
I appologize if I have assumed wrongly about your post in the first place, and just ruined your comment by explicitly explaining it. I just find it so hard to figure out what people around here are trying to say recently.
I can think of 101 reasons why not use .NET:
http://www.manageability.org/manageabilityWiki/Why JavaIsBetterThanDotNet
The fact of the matter here is that
- Poor documentation. This is a huge issue even in the
.NET community. The best documents there are for .NET are the comments on the prototypes in the SDK. That is unacceptable.
- Portability. This is obviously motivated by profits, which is understandable, but still a drawback for the software community at large. In that light, Microsoft should have released the platform for linux and OSX. The related open-source projects are changing this, but they should never have been necessary.
- Exception handling. It's there, it's decent, but it's not quite as good as Java.
I'm sure there are projects that are better suited to be written in Java. But the software community, if they want to save Java, will eventually be forced to "respond" toMods: Do you disagree with me? Go ahead and mod me down. Meta-mods will sort it out. Good luck!
There are some documented areas, but I haven't run into any instances that weren't documented.
I think Sun has had an exemplary record in backwards compatability, especially when compared to other platform vendors, and when you consider that Java runs on so many OSes.
My biggest gripe about Sun with regard to Java is in the JDBC specification.
For example - Can a Connection be used by more than one Thread?
Anwser: It's not detailed in the specification - it's vendor dependant.
This is a bad thing to do in a specification - it means that as a coder you can't rely on one kind of behavior. Or you have to limit to one vendor.
Perhaps you're refering to non Java-platform APIs, like those in the sun. packages?