Sun Says Java Source Already Available

mjdroner writes "In an InfoWorld article, Java CTO James Gosling says that source code for Java has been available for 10 years. Gosling claims Java is close to an open source model, though discounts Sun joining the Eclipse Foundation. He goes on to say that Eclipse's endorsement of the standard widget toolkit destroyed interoperability, saying it's based on the windows API, making it problematic to run on other platforms."

Comments

Oh yeah?

[cosmotron]

Then where is it, behind a door that says "Beware of Leopard"?

Re:It's available?

[ENOENT]

http://wwws.sun.com/software/communitysource/j2se/ java2/download.html

All clear?

Re:Concerning Java.

[lokedhs]

That's wrong. Just download the latest JDK. 1.5 or the 1.6 beta. Then double-click on SwingSet2.jar and try the demo. It's way faster than GNOME on the Linux machines I tried it on. And at least as fast if not faster than the Windows native widget set on at least some machines. Try it yourself. It really has come a long way since the early versions which were horribly slow.

Re:Swing

[lokedhs]

It's improved a lot in every release, SWT or not. Today it's pretty damn good on Windows. The situation is worse on Unix though, I can agree with that. On the other hand, SWT sucks on anything but Windows anyway.

BUT!!!

[gameforge]

I enjoy scrolling up and down 15,000 line source code files as much as the next guy. That's why it's so much fun to look at the GCC sources.

Occasionally, it's actually useful to see how someone implemented something, for educational purposes.

But can I modify it, make it work on my new OS and processor and sell it without paying royalties? Maybe, distribute it under the GPL so it can come with FOS OS' in a truly free sense?

Having source code isn't everything. Back in the old days, there was always source code for everything; UNIX on any of twelve or so different platforms wasn't binary compatible, but source compatible. So if you wanted to make a program and sell it, like PeachTree (yeah it's that old), you HAD to distribute the source code. Otherwise, you'd either have to distribute dozens of different binaries or stick with a single platform, which wasn't profitable.

It was copyright infringement to make money by changing the code and selling it... and you couldn't give any of it away to someone who didn't have a license to it. And even if you did make modifications, you couldn't use them when the next release came out unless you ported them over each time.

There's a difference between something being OpenSource and just having the source. Even if it's a free product like Java.

What can you legally do with it? What separates it from being truly open source? I'd read the article, but it seems /.'d at the moment.

Re:Swing

[adolfojp]

Sorry, but this appears to be FUD. If you want a native look and feel you need to put in one line of code to tell the UIManager to use it. A few more lines can give the user control of the L&F.

No it doesn't. Every app in my system uses font anti aliasing. Every Swing app in my system doesn't. The Swing fonts will look awfull when compared to the fonts of everything else.

Using themes doesn't work that great with Swing either (Not Swing themes but Gnome, KDE, Windows global themes). Swing apps will stick out like a sore thumb.

Let's Define Our Terms

[fm6]

Half the issue here is that everybody (including the Slashdot editors, natch, but a lot of other folks as well) is very sloppy with the terms "Java" and "Open Source"

Java is not the Java Development Kit, or any other specific peice of software. To Sun, "Java" is a trademark, so they can't even use it as a noun. But the rest of us can get by with thinking of Java as a collection of specifications: the Java language, the Java class libraries, and the Java VM spec. None of these is software — software can only be a implementation of Java.

That might seem like a silly distinction, until you remember that Sun is not the only vendor for Java implementations. Not only are there commercial implementations, but there are open source implementations of all three, specs. Of course, these all lag way behind commercial implementations, as open source clones are wont to do.

Anyway, when people say "Sun should open-source Java" what they really mean is "Sun should open-source their implementation of Java."

Which brings us to:

"Open source" is not software where the source code is freely available. It software where you can obtain the source code provided you agree to a license. That license specifies that you must make any changes to that source code available to anybody else who agrees to the same license.

And here's a non-legal issue: if you're serious about making your product open-source, you don't just throw the source code over the wall and say "go crazy!" You make a serious attempt to fold contributed code back into your main source tree. That's a serious administrative cost, and a big reason so many companies are unwilling to OS their products.

Java being open sourced...

[bill_kress]

Java developers, meanwhile, want to preserve interoperability and reliability, which is maintained by the current rules governing Java, Gosling said. To be certified as Java-compliant, software most undergo a test suite.

"They really like the fact that we're very compulsive about the whole testing thing," Gosling said.


Exactly. I think that the people calling for Java to be open sourced don't get the concept. Honestly, I think they must all be either people who are against java just because they have a platform they prefer (A very common occurrence among engineers) or they are trying to destroy the advantages of Java (Simplicity, slow and deeply considered addition of new features, compatibility) in order to make it easier to sell a competing product.

The fact is, nothing will be gained from open-sourcing Java that you can't get by evolving the existing license (for instance, sun is modifying it to be able to ship the JDK with other products). On the other hand, much will be lost. Sun has been a creator and beneficial guardian of this language, and has crafted it into something that many users just love.

Now, many people don't need Java. For instance, if you are making a smallish website, you are just stupid if you try to use java--use ROR or .net technologies that just slide together.

However, if you have a project with an architect, a handful of software engineers and dozens of programmers working on a huge code base at the same time I don't think you can pick a better platform.

If you are not in java's target audience, please SHUT THE HELL UP about it having to be open source. You don't have to feel bad about java not being appropriate for you! I give you permission to go use a scripting type of tool and solve your problem much quicker, but don't try to mold my favorite tool into something that fits your job just because it has a cool name and you think you should be using it because everyone else is.

Those of us who really need java like it pretty much as it is--slow intelligent improvements, fewer terse, confusing or overloaded language features and a large number of users more interested in making readable/reusable code (as opposed to the users who just want to get the job done with write-once code). Overall it's just a good, solid, readable language, leave it at that.