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."
Ahh, someone who wants to make a front page slashdot article, but doesn't understand Java. What's worse? The editor that posts it, and doesn't understand java.
The source code being released isn't "source code for several key Java applications," its the source to Sun's java application server (called "Platform Edition 9"). Other app servers you probably have heard of are WebSphere, WebLogic, and.... the open source JBoss! The reason Sun is open sourcing their app server is because no one uses it!
If a company wants to run a giant professional website and has money to throw at it, they'll get WebLogic or WebSphere to run it. If they don't, they run tomcat (if no EJBs requried) or JBoss. No one uses Sun's app server cause its new and immature.
This is not a step towards opening Java. The only relation this has to Java is the fact that it runs Java code and is written in Java. Just because sun open sourced it doesn't mean its thinking about open sourcing the Java lanugage.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This doesn't really matter to Java detractors. IT types, usually not programmers, will bring up the same old tired clichés.
Somewhere around the year 2000 Java became uncool especially with younger programmers. I guess because it became an institution taught in high schools everywhere. Maybe programmers feel Java is rammed down their throats so they champion less established languages even something by Microsoft.
Java really is the best thing out there for a lot of things. Sun can give away everything and detractors will be like: "OK but what about your first born child?"
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
... just need to jump in both feet and get it done with.
Shadus
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.
In other news, the Ford Motor Company announced today a bold new initiative to sell more cars. It seems that they will now be allowing customers to open the hood and tinker with the engine after buying the car. Ford expects this to increase the popularity of their cars and create a huge market for third-party add-ons.
Unknown host pong.
Sun will not go completely open-source. They already have JBoss, which is open-source... too bad that no one I know of uses it. Also, I doubt anyone would have used Platform Edition 9...unless they made it Open Source and promoted the hell out of it, which is why they are doing this. Everything will remain closed-source. *shrugs* just my 2 cents, though.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
They already did that*.
--
* Well, mostly.
sigs, as if you care.
News articles, like this one, have a way of being read by my bosses who mistake their content entirely. "I just heard that Java is free, can you look into that?"
Of course any discussion of Java isn't complete without someone bringing up that it's slow and bloated. I don't mind the speed, because I don't use any java applications that need to be all that fast. IANA programmer, but java seems to have a horrible leak in it. I have to shut down my freenet node and restart it about once per day because javaw.exe slowly nibbles away at the available memory and will routinely eat up 99% of the CPU usage. The highest the memory usage has gotten before I restarted is ~ 181MB. Over 10% of my total memory!
Free MacMini
Isn't the purpose of open-source to allow customizations through new implementations of said software?
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
" As if Java isn't slow enough, they open source it just in time as .NET is 100x better and faster." .net was that much faster than natively compiled C binaries, considering Java is anywhere between 75-95% percent of the speed of C (Statistics pulled out of nowhere, i remember last time i checked Java was expected to be around 90% of the speed of Compiled C i was guessing that improved) .net considerably faster than C ;)
Wow , i had no idea that
That would make
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
This doesn't really matter to Java detractors. IT types, usually not programmers, will bring up the same old tired clichés.
Same tired old cliches. I can tell you first hand that lots of major developers of Java and early advocates have been turned off directly by issues that could have been addressed by open sourcing it. But that won't stop you from your tired cliches that it doesn't matter, just because you don't want it to matter.
I was developing major applications with it before it reached 1.0, and still work with it quite a bit, but it becomes more and more irrelevant despite my best work because Sun wills it to be irrelevant. Even as a major early licensee of Java, basic problems were not considered important enough for Sun to solve, and it hasn't changed much.
Somewhere around the year 2000 Java became uncool especially with younger programmers. I guess because it became an institution taught in high schools everywhere. Maybe programmers feel Java is rammed down their throats so they champion less established languages even something by Microsoft.
Again, strong on cliche, very weak on technical understanding or demographic fact, but at least you contradict your prior nonsense that it is not programmers turning away.
Java really is the best thing out there for a lot of things. Sun can give away everything and detractors will be like: "OK but what about your first born child?"
Go whine somewhere else. You think you should dictate what is useful to us without giving us adequate control to meet our needs? We will continue to use Java less and less as other tools continue come forward that are more responsive to our needs. The stuff we run today in Java doesn't benefit from the JVM and will be ported away as performance becomes more important and other features we need to build in are still not available in Java, since it is not open.
The whole attitude that somehow open source is wanting more from Sun than it would contribute back is ignorant, uninformed, short sighted, etc. Sun and their apologists should get a clue. Open source would make it responsive to a much wider range of developers and would produce developments Sun was too blind to pursue or pursued way too late and too little. Any harm has already been done to a great extent by Sun's pig-headedness. They should go off in a corner and use it by themselves if they don't want to open it up.
Waiting for Java has become a dead issue. No one expects Sun to get a clue, so why are you still whining that some in the past thought they might.
How many steps are there?
excellent work
+5 jibberish
Javascript != Java
Outsourcing has what to do with this?
Java is dead, long live LISP.
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.
Sun won't be embracing the "cancer". What they are doing would be like Microsoft giving away the source code for programs made in Visual Basic (none of which I can recall at the moment ). All they are trying to do is gain more support for Java and its use in further applications.
That that is, is.
Thanks for not understanding anything about Java. Java CAN use native widgets -- check out SWT. SWT apps look great. Take Eclipse and Azureus for example: they're superb applications, they integrate well with nice shortcuts and launchers and whatnot, and they look wonderful. Even swing apps can look great if some effort is put into their design; Netbeans is a great IDE.
For what kind of applications? If you are talking about pure speed, java is certainly not even 75% as fast as C... If you want to compete with some algorithm let me know - I'll do the C implementation and you'll do the java implementation, and then we'll see the difference...
:)
Nevertheless, that was a good reply to a troll
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Isn't SUN the company that said OSS is a cancer in 2001? Now come 2005 and they are embracing "the CANCER?"
No, they didn't. They've said bad things about the GPL, for sure, but not about OSS.
Perhaps you should recall them open-sourcing OpenOffice in 2000?
I am supprised about SUN's move and wonder whether this move by SUN will also mean that it will be more open about SCO's case.
What the heck does any of this have to do with the SCO case?
Sheesh, drop the "with us or against us" attitude, will you?
May as well download IBM's JVM or Microsoft's to get reasonable native widgets. With Sun's campaign against native libraries, they should have supplied something themselves and not killed off all the competing libraries, each of which worked better than theirs.
Sun still doesn't "get" open source. Check out this interview on news.com with Scott McNealy, Sun's CEO.
We have a strategy that's very different from everybody else's, and it's community development. The way we say that is with the S curve in all our new literature. It's not for Scott, it's not for Sun, it's for "share." We're grabbing that word and saying, of anybody, we own the word "share." We own that space.
The oxymoron appears to have gone unnoticed. But it makes it very clear that Sun is still all about proprietary stuff. They might share it, but they still own it. And that's straight from the horse's mouth.
So.. it has come to this
Yea I'd like to see where you pulled those stats from. I was on a JSP development team for 2 years. We were developing web apps in Visual Age and I've used several other apps written in Java during that time. I can tell you from experience that Java apps do tend to be slower than apps not based on Java. That's just my experience with real Java apps.
I suppose there could be some things that you could get Java to do faster than the alternatives (.NET, etc.). But when it comes down to a real application with a GUI, etc. it is definately slooooooooow.
.net is dog slow. Unless they've improved the performance a *lot* for 2.0 even Java could leave it in the dust.
Comparing that to a native C implemenation is just stupid.
I get the feeling that the core of Java has been allowed to stagnate at Sun, and they've mostly been concentrating on their web applications for Java.
Maybe once the open source community get their hands on it, they can start improving the VM and actually have it start performing at acceptable speeds.
The real situation has been the exact opposite. The latest version of Java (5.0) was a major upgrade of core features, with significant new language extensions. The VM is now very fast, with an improved start-up time for applications, and the ability to approach C/C++ speed even for numerical work.
The product name is new, the product core is not. Other names it went by include (in chronological order)
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Being kind of open-source is like being kind of pregnant.
Look, either we can see the source for Java or not.
In this case, it's a not.
Sun: Thank you, come again.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
SWT runs on Java the language but it is not Java itself. That is to say, it is not part of the Java platform. It is a product of IBM-- it's a third party library-- and is not promoted or supported by Sun. If he wants to complain about the Java language maybe he's being unreasonable, but if he wants to complain about Sun's Java then things are quite different.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It would have been nice if the Sun Java App Server could have become an Apache project instead of a CDDL project. It would have been a perfect match for Apache. But maybe that was asking for too much. Sun was very generous when they donated Tomcat to Apache back 1999 (and perhaps Sun's management thinks they were too generous since Tomcat forms the foundation for some products which now compete with Sun)
Yes, I know that Geronimo is working under Apache to do an app server too, but they are still have a long way to go to be production ready.
Note to those who become involved with the new GlassFish project. If you ever get any leverage with Sun, please ask for an Apache License.
This is not a step towards opening Java. The only relation this has to Java is the fact that it runs Java code and is written in Java. Just because sun open sourced it doesn't mean its thinking about open sourcing the Java lanugage.
Okay, that would explain a lot.
But when I first saw the thread, I thought it meant that Sun was opening the "source" to javac and java, and then I got to wondering: Okay, what language are those programs written in? C++? C? Bison?
Or is it largely "machine code"?
I can think of 101 reasons why not use .NET:
http://www.manageability.org/manageabilityWiki/Why JavaIsBetterThanDotNet
Uhh, sorry but isn't "unacceptable" still just one word?
If you are talking about pure speed, java is certainly not even 75% as fast as C
Yes, it most certainly is. However, it does tend to be a bit of a memory hog, which slows down larger apps. Then again, big fat C++ apps like OpenOffice aren't exactly blinding fast either.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Or JOnAS!
Constitutionally Correct
Those benchmarks seem like crap to me - the first four are supposed to be more or less equal for C and a Java JIT compiler, since from what I can see, they're just coding C in java (ie, no objects, just loops with variables of primitive types, etc).
:)
The I/O benchmark is just ridiculous, since it's... I/O bound by definition. It just proves that most of those languages are not the bottleneck when doing I/O
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Show me one single license that IS compatible with the GPL, where "compatible" doesn't mean "relicensed under the GPL".
Additionally, the GPL is based on copyright, which is an "intellectual property" mechanism. I bet I could find plenty of "unfortunate" terms in the GPL to pick on as well.
Maybe the problem doesn't lie with all the other licenses.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Java is a COMPILER and an interpretor. The startup time plus compiling causes confusion even to computer experts. Too many people that I trust say its fast once it gets going.The only negative is that it's both a compiler and an interpretor and is trying to do too much.Sun maybe should have kept java just an interpretor like PYTHON and PEARL and then people might not complain about speed.
Another idea would have been to have it 'COMPILE' code into native just like a c compiler.
You made the case for the opposition. Now cite a product that runs in pure Sun Java and can be redistributed as a simple class library. Anyone can make a native entry point allowing better native implementations to be invoked by Java, but then most of what is claimed about Sun Java becomes false.
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!
Show me one single license that IS compatible with the GPL
GPL Compatible licences:
GNU GPL
GNU LGPL
X11 License
W3C Software Notice and License
Berkeley Database License
Clarified Artistic License
Intel Open Source License
Modified BSD license
MIT License
There are many others also.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
But then it wouldn't be "write once, run everywhere". That's one of Java's main selling points.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Another idea would have been to have it 'COMPILE' code into native just like a c compiler.
The JVM does convert the byte code into native machine code. All programs need to be converted to native machine code in order to run.
Sun maybe should have kept java just an interpretor like PYTHON and PEARL and then people might not complain about speed.
I'm quite certain that the speed would be much worse if the JVM simply interpreted the byte code rather than compiling it. It seems that you are a bit confused about the difference between an interpreter and a compiler. An interpreter will run through all of the steps of a compiler on the fly, but will not store the results of the parse tree, type checking, etc. This means that an identical piece of code that is executed 1000 times in an interpreted language will be re-parsed and re-type checked 1000 times. Java is a bit smarter than that. It will do the compilation on the fly, AND store the results for the next time it is needed. (Which is why some java programs seem to require more an more memory as they are executed.)
What I think would make a lot of people happy is if Sun released a more tradional compiler. Such compilers do exist (like GCJ for example,) but they do not support all of the Java libraries (As far as I know, Swing is not supported in any of these compilers.) I guess this would break the write once, run anywhere view that Sun has had for the past ten years, but I think we all know that that will never be truly achieved.
FortKnox seemed to clear up the confusion about "Sun closer to opening up Java", but on a more general note - I would find Java to be a much more attractive desktop solution if I could compile Java down to an .exe.
Yes, I know about GCJ, but that only works with a subset of current java (that I'm aware of) and I think even commercial native compilers like Excelsior Jet (or something like that) can't compile Swing apps.
I don't care about the politics of open sourcing it, but open sourcing java just gives me many more options when considering something that isn't server side.
But Sun still has this fear of opening up under the same excuse of "our corporate customers don't want incompatible forks". It's Sun's baby and all, but how much do they even make on Java? And will they ever recoup the development costs?
Those benchmarks seem like crap to me - the first four are supposed to be more or less equal for C and a Java JIT compiler, since from what I can see, they're just coding C in java (ie, no objects, just loops with variables of primitive types, etc).
So what you're saying is that you want to benchmark not languages but programming paradigms?
Or just rig the benchmark so that it might support your false original claim?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
All of those are essentially BSD/MIT style licences, no?
Got any examples of actual substantive licences which do more than, essentially, "Retain copyright, credits please" which are GPL compatible?
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Don't think you're going to find one but the FSF definition is very narrow as it is. Compatible in there book means relicensed under GPL. However, many people still argue that linking against a certain library, whether it is statically or dynamically doesn't, is allowed from any program that is not a direct extension of that library. (eg a wrapper around libssl)
The problem off course being in the interpretation of the GPL. I think we'll only know for sure once the GPL gets tested in court.
I'm saying that for a typical moderately complex program made in both languages C will be faster than Java. Just as the same program made in C and C++ will tipically be slightly faster in C, but the code is also stightly more difficult to understand in some types of applications. Of course, if you're going to do "inline asm" in C and C++, the performance will be the same...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Of those licenses, show me which ones do not simply become the GPL when mixed with the GPL. The GPL's definition of "compatible" is "able to be relicensed perpetually under the GPL".
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
- Sun is the final arbiter of what constitutes a Java-compliant application. People incorrectly claim that Sun's control extends only over the trademark, but that's not true: they can keep you from shipping your Java implementation through patents and the licenses on their specifications if they don't like what you are doing, no matter what you call your Java.
- The Java specifications that you need to create your own Java implementation are only available under a strict license (the fact that you can download them so easily from java.sun.com makes it even worse)
- Sun owns several patents on key technologies needed for creating a compliant Java implementation
- The only Java implementations actually capable of running the code are Sun's and licensed derivatives.
Maybe the creation of a fully open source Java implementation by IBM, Apache, and/or GNU will finally force Sun's hand--while technically, non-enforcements of their patents and licenses against such open source projects doesn't invalidate their claims, practically, they would have to act or face tough questions. But until the legal status of open source Java implementations is resolved (or Sun abandons their ridiculous patent and license claims), the only Java there is is proprietary: Sun Java and its derivatives.And open sourcing stuff built on top of their proprietary platform doesn't bring it one step closer to open source. Quite to the contrary: it merely looks like an attempt to drum up business for their proprietary platform.
Java compiles to bytecode which is 'not' native. The bytecode is for the java processor(virtual machine).
y /j-native.html?loc=j
Python and Perl seem fast on startup because they don't have to compile to bytecode.
Native code is what c or c++ compilers create.
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/librar
Your other point about GCJ is what I was saying.
open and free ( as in beer ), but with no freedom for developers to modify it to suit their needs and redistribute that.
open sources sure does not mean freedom as the free software movement tries hard.
I don't feel like it...
When you compile your java code into a .class file using javac, this is producing byte code. The byte code is then run on a JVM that will further compile the byte code into machine code. Let me re-iterate, NOTHING other than machine code can ultimately run on a CPU. There is no java byte code engine built into the processor. Python and Perl are fast on startup because they simply traverse the parse tree and generate machine code as they go. They do not need to worry about storing the results of the parse tree.
No one else could type that and control their laughing long enough to click "submit".
Nothing like reasoned argument is there?
Java's portability is a plain fact. Major complex applications such as JBoss run on Windows, Linux, MacOS.. and all other J2SE platforms with no changes. The quality of the Linux implementations is demonstrated by it's use on that platform by high-performance sites such as E-Bay.
So given the choice between the opinions of one AC and the opinions of developers in major financial institutions and in some of the most successful websites, I know which I would listen to.
I'm no programmer, however isn't Java's appeal the fact that it's very easy to make Java apps cross-platform?
While Sun's intentions in open sourcing their products may not be neccesarily benign, they ARE giving *something significant* to the open source communuity. The best example I can give is OpenOffice.
Sun does have it's own commercial office suite called StarOffice which is derived from the OO suite, however OO is being developed into a very well-rounded competitor.
NeoOffice/J for OS X is a great opensource alternative for MS Office, and that project has its roots in the OpenOffice suite.
Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths....
First of all, you don't compile your java code into a class file, you "compile" it. In Computer Science compilation produces machine code. javac does not.
Secondly, to your post two levels up, I don't think merely adding caching to an interpreter suddenly makes it not an interpreter. I'm sure MS's classic VB runtime cached things in loops at least. And it was definitely an interpreted language (it did eventually allow the option of making an EXE, but I don't know if it actually compiled the p-code or whatever to machine code, or just linked in the VB runtime).
Which brings me to what I'm wondering about: You say the JVM compiles the byte code into machine code. I seriously doubt that that's true. Does the JVM really take your byte code and build an executable and spawn a process for it? Until I hear otherwise, I'm under the assumption that it does not, that rather the JVM is compiled, and that your byte code never is, but is interpreted (and cached) by the JVM. That is, only JVM code is ever machine code. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
For what kind of applications? If you are talking about pure speed, java is certainly not even 75% as fast as C...
Yes it is.
If you want to compete with some algorithm let me know - I'll do the C implementation and you'll do the java implementation, and then we'll see the difference...
This page includes results for a well-established benchmark for math processing - Linpack.
http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/
It shows Sun's JDK 5.0 being more than 90% of the speed of C/C++.
Ah. I understand your point now and I agree with you.
That would be the definition of compatible for just about any license though, wouldn't it?
Personally, I don't see it as a big problem that the GNU GPL uses "compatible" to mean "can be relicensed as GPL"
When you have various bits of code under various different licenses then either you can't mix the code because of license conflicts or it ends up being licensed under the most restrictive one. In this case the most restrictive is the GPL because it restricts the right to remove other peoples freedom. That's not too much of a problem for a license designed to protect freedom.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Got any examples of actual substantive licences which do more than, essentially, "Retain copyright, credits please" which are GPL compatible?
No. For any licence (licence A) to be compatible with My Favorite License (licence B) then license A cannot include any restrictions that are not also included in licence B. (unless I have missed something obvious)
In the GPL example that means no compatible license can have greater restrictions. That is quite hard to find since the GPL hardly has any restrictions to start with.
Incidentally, AFAIK "retain copyright, credits please" would be GPL compatible because "credits please" is a restriction that the GPL requires not to be imposed.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Did you read the message? I've just done it and it specifically talked about "DESKTOP APPS."
No it didn't. Let me quote:
"Java is a corporate quagmire and on Linux it is seriously shite."
I whole heartedly concur with the post to which you replied: java sucks for desktop work. Swing blows -- particularly under Linux -- Sun just doesn't give a shit about Linux, doubly so these days with "Open"Solaris.
Nonsense. Sun sells Linux systems. They have major development teams producting software for it (such as the JVM). A very strange way of 'not giving a shit'!
As for Swing, it is now one of the standard ways to develop on MacOS/X, and a Swing-based development tool - NetBeans - won the 'Open Source developer tool 2005' award from developer.com - a site that deals with far more than Java. Sure looks like the 'Swing blows' statement might be mistaken?
I think you may be mis-interpreting what I am saying. I am merely stating the obvious that only machine code can ultimately run on a processor.
Please refer to the following paragraph taken from wikipedia:
Additionally, please refer to the description of javac taken from the javac man page: I am not stating that the JVM builds an executable and then runs it. That is surely untrue. I was just trying to explain the difference between the inner workings of a compiler verses an interpreter. The main point I was trying to make was that a compiler will hold on to the results of parsing, type checking, etc. where as an interpreter will not.
Maybe it's time for Id Software to start making their games with Java then. I think you know what I mean :)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Beyond that, there's nothing stopping people from developing using SWT if they don't like swing.
. png
It's not as flexible, but it's MUCH faster.
Have a look at what it can do:
http://sancho-gui.sourceforge.net/images/ss-new-1
They even have natively compiled binaries for it!
And let's not forget the guys who invented swt:
http://www.eclipse.org/
Of course, that's not to say that swing sucks:
http://www.powerfolder.com/8603/39627.html
Mmm. nice isn't it? I certainly wouldn't spot this a mile away as being swing.
That is what we call an example of a programmer doing his job right.
I used to hate swing applications too, but that was when I ran a 500MHz machine. CPUs are cheap these days.
Java will never be open source.
Maybe it's time for Id Software to start making their games with Java then. I think you know what I mean :)
The games industry has always been rather conservative about development languages. Assembler is still much used, even those C and C++ offer high speed.
Java should be fine for games, as there are options to use DirectX and OpenGL graphics acceleration.
"Rags" presentation had the following details. Java will never be open source. It will continue the Java community process, but it will not become open source like apache etc.
This according to Raghavan 'rags' Srinivas at JSpring 2005 in the Netherlands where he held a nice demonstration on Java. Rags is one of the Java evangelists of Sun.
My appologies about the wrong post before this one, that's my Dell laptop playing up (stupid touchpad gets activated by the keyboard sometimes).
Would you want to be interrupted in the middle of your game by the garbage collector? If you have used java programs you know what I mean...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
You take one sentence out of context and ignore everything else. Just how much of a liar are you?
...
The sentence stood alone. Let's look at another sentence from that post:
"Sun's entire Java package for Linux sucks..."
Nothing specific about desktop java there. Quite the opposite.
Bullshit. Sun *sold* Linux systems.
Why post this when a simple check on Sun's website proves you wrong?
Sun ships Linux *now*.
What's the next version of JDS going to be based on?
From Sun's website:
"Initially provided with a Linux OS, Java Desktop System is now also integrated with the Solaris 10 Operating System."
Also, not instead of. They are broading the range of OSes on which you can get JDS, not changing it.
The JDS Q & A:
"Future versions will extend platform support to the Solaris SPARC and x86 platforms."
Linux is about as low-priority as you can get at Sun, and still be considered as "supported".
Nonsense. The JVM on Linux is kept just as up-to that on other platforms. Sun also provides Star Office for Linux, their app server for Linux, their Enterprise System for Linux
That would be the definition of compatible for just about any license though, wouldn't it?
You certainly can't merge two licenses together and produce a hybrid, no. At least not without negotiating with the original licensor. However, licenses like the LGPL have fairly specific exemptions, limiting their protections to the actual code being licensed. RMS has time and again shown his contempt for this "Lesser" license, but he's at least been pragmatic enough to not withdraw it from the GNU license choices.
Cygwin is another example, with a modified GPL that won't cause relicensing of any open source license. Essentially, you can't link proprietary software to it, but it won't relicense other open source software. Of course, the idea that the GPL can somehow "taint" another program such that the author unwittingly ends up relicensing all his work to the GPL is actually a bit ridiculous -- the GPL simply can't assert rights over someone else's work. However, since you have no rights distribute the GPL'd code any other way, distributing it and leaving it that way for years could be considered tacit agreement to the terms of the GPL. And most authors simply take the path of least resistance and choose GPL for that reason.
So while the GPL technically isn't so virulent a virus as some would have it, it still tends that way. And this is probably just the way RMS wants it. It may have been necessary back in the days of 100% proprietary platforms, or even the old shareware days when software was becoming "free", but with obnoxious strings attached. The culture had to be shifted toward completely free, and building a software culture around a single license was a means to that end. I'm not so sure it's the best fit to modern times, but then again, each new platform has brought a resurgence of both proprietary lock-ins and annoying crappy shareware, so there's cause for the FSF to dig in its heels to this day.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
I couldn't give a flying crap about bought awards.
It wasn't a bought award. I assume you have evidence to back up this accusation?
Could you perhaps name some prominent Mac OSX apps that are developed with Swing? No sneaky listing Sun dev tools or obscure shareware apps either.
NeoOffice/J for Mac - just released.
I prefer to call it an inoculation rather than a virus. I think inoculation fits the intent of, and as far as I can see, the effect of, the GPL quite well.
First of all, you don't compile your java code into a class file, you "compile" it. In Computer Science compilation produces machine code. javac does not.
Yes it does. It produces machine code for the Java Virtual Machine. There are some processors that can run this code directly - it is their machine code.
Which brings me to what I'm wondering about: You say the JVM compiles the byte code into machine code. I seriously doubt that that's true.
It is true.
Does the JVM really take your byte code and build an executable and spawn a process for it? Until I hear otherwise, I'm under the assumption that it does not, that rather the JVM is compiled, and that your byte code never is, but is interpreted (and cached) by the JVM.
Just because an executable is not built an run as a separate process does not mean that byte code is not compiled. The byte code is translated into sections of machine code which are then jumped into by the interpreter (during which time it is not interpreting).
This of course, meant that Java got used for everything -- including the presentation layer of web applications where it is ridiculous. It took at over 5 years and Google's "revolutionary AJAX" to get people to start paying attention to Javascript/DHTML again.
And all of this Javascript / DHTML is going to be generated and served how? Sure, it can be done by any platform, but Java has great support (via servlets and JSPs) for HTTP interation of this nature, so don't expect Java to disappear for that use.
And the Web Services that the AJAX Javascript will be invoking? Where will those come from? Sure, it can be done by any platform, but Java has great support (via Servlets + WebService Endpoints, and/or Axis ) for SOAP interation of this nature, so don't expect Java to disappear for that use.
The increase in popularity of AJAX has almost nil to do with whether or not Java remains popular. If anything, AJAX may promote Java.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Wow, that's a revisionist history if I ever heard one.
Java was already popular by the time it began getting used for enterprise web applications. There was a big push to leverage Java on the server side circa 1998, and Java Servlets got a lot of positive attention because, when compared to the CGI model of forking a new process for each request, servlets were very efficient and outperformed CGI under load.
That is why Java took off on the web tier. It offered an alternative to CGI for those who were on non-Microsoft platforms (who couldn't use ASP).
Of course, if you just want to rant about outsourcing, you can just continue changing the story...
Would you want to be interrupted in the middle of your game by the garbage collector? If you have used java programs you know what I mean...
The garbage collection in Java can be set not to interrupt. This is why Java is now being used in real time systems.
I believe he asked for "prominent Mac OSX apps that are developed with Swing". 1. NeoOffice isn't a Swing app, or a least the vast majority of its interface isn't Swing. 2. NeoOffice isn't prominent, it's just a small fork of OpenOffice. That was pretty desperate dude...
You fail it!
Yes, I did. With good reason. There aren't prominent Mac OSX apps developed with Swing. Almost no-one writes Java specifically for MacOSX, or Linux, or Windows. They write portable Java applications, which are able to run on those platforms.
There may be good reason to target MacOSX with Java, but in principle, it is Java used wrongly. What Apple provides is a very-high quality implementation of Swing that allows general portable Java applications to look like Aqua when running on MacOSX.
Asking for Java applications that target MacOSX is as silly as to ask for PERL or Python applications that target Pentium chips.
I was naive to have fallen into the trap!
Well, I still haven't understood why this game is so slow on old machines, just to give an example. Maybe it's very badly programmed, I don't know. It's great btw :)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Well, I still haven't understood why this game is so slow on old machines, just to give an example. Maybe it's very badly programmed, I don't know. It's great btw :)
On older machines it may be using an older JVM - maybe Microsoft's one that shipped with Windows.
A large public website I work with is likely going to drop using java applets in the future now that the new versions of the plugin display a very large ad for Sun - and even seem to delay the running of the applet to ensure you get a good 10 or 15 second stare at the ad.
I havn't written a java application that came as one .class, um, ever. And I'e also never written one that had *any* trouble on other platforms.
Of course in the "real world" you're going to need to do some native code, maybe some database stuff, and those arn't protable all the time. But you can't blame java for that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
So, in the vein of the original poster, I'm going to claim that Java is the best 3G application-development language going: it's the only one that includes GUI components of any kind in its API (except maybe Microsoft's C# API, which is debatable). Sounds pretty silly huh?