Does an Open Java Really Matter?

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister questions the relevance of the recent opening of Java given the wealth of options open source developers enjoy today. Sure, as the first full-blooded Java implementation available under a 100 percent Free Software license, RedHat's IcedTea pushes aside open source objections to developing in Java. Yet, McAllister asks, if Java really were released today, brand-new, would it be a tool you'd choose? 'The problem, as I see it, is twofold,' he writes. 'First, as the Java platform has matured, it has become incredibly complex. Today it's possible to do anything with Java, but no one developer can do everything — there simply aren't enough hours in the day to learn it all. Second, and most important, even as Java has stretched outward to embrace more concepts and technologies — adding APIs and language features as it goes — newer, more lightweight tools have appeared that do most of what Java aims to do. And they often do it better.'" Since Java itself never mattered except to sell books, I still don't see why opening it matters.

Comments

Re:If it weren't for Python, sure

[eviloverlordx]

Anal-retentive use of whitespace counts as 'fun'? That's a definition of the word 'fun' I wasn't previously aware of.

Re:(Troll) I hate java, why does /. love it?

[geekoid]

1. If Java wasn't aropund, people would get paid for creating the same applications i a different language.

2. No, it's not mature.

3. Great it's faster then it used to be, but it's still not fast. Java 1.6 is not fast.

4. So is C++, your point?