Slashdot Mirror
Java Creator James Gosling Hired At Google
jfruhlinger writes "Some months after leaving Oracle in a huff, father of Java James Gosling has joined Google. It's not clear what his job responsibilities will be there, but given some of his past statements about Google projects — that Android has no adult supervision, for instance — it will be interesting to see what develops."
Why is this guy still in the news?
I get it - he's a douche, and his wife Kate is an overbearing bitch, and all they both care about is making money (over $1,000,000 per episode) off of their litter.
Who cares if their kids get psychologically ruined? I mean, it's not like they had a chance to become productive, sane members of society with those two as parents anyway.
In a perfect world, they'd be in jail and the kids would be adopted.
But no, now this guy is being given a cushy job at Google, for what? Java?
Please, that's what Amazon Mechanical Turk is for.
Gosling will be able to easily ensure that Google's Android code base is free of anything Oracle's disputing. For the long term, it only makes sense that the creator of Java is now involved in the language's biggest current flagship technology. As a developer with experience in both C# and Java, C# is the spiritual sequel to J++. It was MS' answer to the then-war with Sun over Java on Windows, and a sad effort at that. A language tied directly to a single OS = BAD. As a Java coder, I can get a job developing on desktop PCs, Web applications, smartphones, Blu-Ray players and TVs, or Martian rovers. People get frustrated with Java because it's got some pretty obnoxiously verbose syntax, but it's well-respected for what it is. I find it comical when people flame Java's runtimes, and then love how they can run other languages' code in a JVM environment.
My favorite Gosling quote: "The worst thing that can happen to a programming language you create is that people start to use it."
James Gosling - Java Guido van Rossum - Python Ken Thompson - C, Go Joshua Bloch - Java
And MS-PL is not compatible with the GPL. If Microsoft really wanted to join hands with the Open Source community they wouldn't have deliberately created a license that is incompatible with the way the vast, vast majority of Open Source projects are licensed. I ignore their words. When I listen to their actions, the message is that they want to make a token gesture of openness that has severely limited practical use while discouraging community forks, all of which serves to make it possible for them to regain complete control if they later change their mind.
It's amazing how effective token gestures like this are, how impressed by them people can be. Really it's business as usual: if you want to actually benefit from the source they have provided you either do it Microsoft's way or you don't get to do it at all. Source that an Open Source developer can't use in their existing GPL projects may as well be closed source. Nowhere in here do you find any sort of community spirit, a cherishing of "free as in speech", an appreciation of compatibility, or a willingness to deal with the many Open Source developers as equals. It's either the Microsoft Way or the highway and that's why .Net is something I can easily live without, however convenient it may be.
No, they usually wait until it becomes much more widespread and ubiquitous before they do that. They're too smart to stop playing nice this early on. A wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't reveal his fangs until he's well within the flock of sheep. They use underhanded techniques like this again and again because they work, because so many fools still don't see it coming after so many examples. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is the way Microsoft operates is either ignorant about their history and the way it repeats itself, a marketer/shill, or just plain naive.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein