Oracle Hasn't Killed Java -- But There's Still Time

snydeq (1272828) writes Java core has stagnated, Java EE is dead, and Spring is over, but the JVM marches on. C'mon Oracle, where are the big ideas? asks Andrew C. Oliver. 'I don't think Oracle knows how to create markets. It knows how to destroy them and create a product out of them, but it somehow failed to do that with Java. I think Java will have a long, long tail, but the days are numbered for it being anything more than a runtime and a language with a huge install base. I don't see Oracle stepping up to the plate to offer the kind of leadership that is needed. It just isn't who Oracle is. Instead, Oracle will sue some more people, do some more shortsighted and self-defeating things, then quietly fade into runtime maintainer before IBM, Red Hat, et al. pick up the slack independently. That's started to happen anyhow.'

Comments

Re:This is the best case scenario

[Jane Q. Public]

Oracle can't figure out how to screw over java, and we are complaining?

No. Oracle *IS* screwing over Java, and we are complaining. That's what OP was all about.

It's the same crap they did to MySQL, it's just slower. Do you really wonder why most big web hosts have switched to MariaDB? (Hint: they probably won't tell you about it either. They still advertise MySQL, which for practical purposes it still is.)

Re:Nobody kills Java

[idontgno]

So, what you're saying is that Oracle's stagnant "sit on it" leadership is bad for people for whom the language and runtime are the end, the product, the point of it all.

As opposed to in the real world, in which the language and runtime are just tools to get shit done, and its users want stability.

You don't have to guess which community Oracle cares about. But if you're not sure, ask yourself which community can Oracle extort support contracts out of, or can be upsold on other products.

Follow the money. How much is the JCP paying Oracle to give a rat's ass about their concerns? Innovation is a cost center to someone protecting a market share, and competing against others who are protecting a market share.

If you want novelty, go find it someplace else. The other posters comparing Java to COBOL, even if jokingly, are very nearly right. Especially if you stipulate that, at the time of COBOL's dominance, the primary implementation of COBOL was associated with IBM big iron.

And that's your historical analogue of the day: COBOL was to IBM what Java is to Oracle.