Slashdot Mirror
Sun Withdraws Java from Standards Process
An anonymous reader pointed us to a story over at ZD Net about Sun withdrawing Java from the ECMA Standards body. They say they want to protect the "Integrity" of the company's investment in Java.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
#!/usr/bin/perl
Every UNIX I know of does this automatically in any call to exec*(). Why can't a webbrowser do this for applets? Just get it as application/applet or something and then it can run it directly. Seems to be an okay way to do it, except that I'm squeamish about running any arbitrary code I'd run across on the web. Like, I wouldn't want Netscape to automatically run the following "applet":
#!/bin/sh /
rm -rf
Which is, of course, why Java is setup as a secure, isolated virtual machine, and why ActiveVirus...er, ActiveX uses a silly signature/authentication mechanism to make sure it really is a trusted source, in theory anyway.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
The classes are part of the language. The language is not just the syntax, but also the semantics, and the core libraries are tied up in this. For instance all objects inherit from java.lang.Object. I believe all java.* and javax.* classes are part of the language (/platform). This is why the java.lang and java.util packages are described in the Java Language Specification.
However, there is so much more available in other languages, for instance:
- numbers, characters, and strings are objects
- dynamic typing is an option
- decent type systems, especially wrt generics
- decent library of classes; largely this is due to typing problems
Maybe Java will at least get people thinking about the languages which set the context for so much of their work. If you aren't worried about applets, then, for many programming domains, languages like Lisp and Smalltalk give you the same benefits that Java does, plus more, and plus they have stable, mature implementations.Your comments about Sun, knights in shining armour and Microsoft remind me of a comment about trust made by the moredhel Gorath*: a friend can betray you, but with an enemy, you always know where you stand. Now, admittedly, a true friend will never betray you, but someone who only seems to be your friend can and probably will. Sadly, this is the only effective test of friendship I know of.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
The community process is in place, and has been working. Needed changes to the language and libraries get adopted in the next release or two. It's not as responsive as OpenSource, but it's pretty effective. From what I've seen, notably in C++, having a committee as a guardian isn't very effective by comparison.
The bulk of the posts say how bad the decision is, and yet, Sun has acted in good faith and good conscience to protect the integrity of the language. That's why I can write the c/s app on Linux, and run it seamlessly on Digital Unix, Solaris, and NT/Win98 without any sort of port or recompile. Because their process is working. I can't even get two compilers to agree on output on all those platforms in C/C++, without even taking the db interfaces into consideration.
Why, specifically is this a bad thing? Don't the results matter? Isn't that the real reason for doing things? The principle isn't at stake here, as we don't have a comparable project I know of that a committee or standards organization has succeeded with.
My 25 cents.
Dallas Hockley
hockleyd@cybersurf.net
Python can be compiled to bytecodes, but python programs are traditionally distributed only in source form. There's nothing stopping anyone from distributing python programs in bytecode form, but there's not much that can be done to obfuscate the bytecode, so decompiling is relatively easy.
There are differences between what Sun is doing and what Microsoft has done. (And this analogy is getting really tired of being trotted out for any company Redhat's size or larger.)
:)
First, Microsoft does not license their Windows technology to anyone. (Wince doesn't count.)
Sun licenses their technology to anyone that wants to pay the fees. In fact, Sun would be happy if they never had to do their own JVM implementations. They would be content to provide a reference implementation and compatability testing.
Microsoft charges for everything.
Sun gives JDK, JRE, etc. away for free... and has even made the JDK more free.
Microsoft does not provide a source for input to the evolution of their products.
Sun provides a Community Process to which anyone can become a member for a fee. Sure, not any old Joe can give his input, but would we really want a language developed by popular vote? I sure wouldn't.
Microsoft creates products to push their own defacto standards for API's and such.
Sun regularly publishes draft standards for Java extensions. Many of which are designed around third party implementations to be plugged in.
In conclusion, Sun controls the Java platform but not with the same stranglehold that Microsoft has on anything Microsoft. And this difference is significant.
If Sun suddenly decided to take Java in strange directions that the majority of the Java development community didn't agree with, Java would live on as another language. If that happens then I'll be the first one joining in on the Myva(?) project.
However, right now I think Sun is doing a fantastic job and I'm willing to give them some leeway.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
The difference is obviously that neither Perl nor Python are being used as a lever by a MSFT wannabe to cause the great unwashed masses to buy more of a particular workstation vendor's gear. McNealy and crew are just want to be like Bill. They want to own the desktop, the server, and the client business, and have you, the poor unwashed (l)user, pay them fees for taking a leak with a java based toilet.
Perl is being pushed by O'Reilly, because they want to sell books. But hell, I can download the source and do pretty much any freaking thing I want with it. Same goes for Python. O'Reilly does have a motive, and they have Larry working there too. But O'Reilly isn't pulling the same crap that Sun is pulling. Why the hell would anyone claim that some C++ wannabe language is a standard when they really don't want to allow it to progress to full standardization?
Simple. They want control. Absolute control.
A little while ago, a competitor to Sun from across the garbage heap offered up a great technology to help boost java. Sun would have nothing to do with it, prefering instead to write its own API. Other companies have tried to write java technologies competitive with Sun, only to have Sun change the API on them in the next release to make their technology more difficult/impossible to implement, and allow Sun to covet that technology.
Folks, do not allow yourself to be fooled by Sun's motives. They are trying to protect their bottom line, and frankly they do not care who takes it in the shorts in the end. They want you to pay them for every use of the java based auto-toilet, and they want to be like Bill.
If they really wanted to grow Java, all they ever had to do was freeze the specs, release it (copyrights and all) to the orgs, and voila, a standard. That would have been good. Now, there will be a java standard. Sun just wont be involved.
Standards. Don't ya just love 'em.
When Linus says, "remember: a compiler is a TOOL"
people nod in agreement. When he says that if a
job's criteria can't be met by sticking within a
standard, the compliance to the standard should
suffer, not the criteria. And people murmur
their approval.
And Linux is completely dependent on gcc and
very popular and useful and portable.
Now along comes Sun shadowed by the evil
Microsoft. Frankly, Sun (and Microsoft) are
in it to make a buck.
Java is very public and portable and open.
But Sun was in a dogfight with Microsoft
and saw the mire of the Standards Process
as a way of shaking them. And it sort of worked.
Now when Sun's job criteria can't be met by
sticking within a Standards Process, the
compliance to the Standards Process should
suffer, not the criteria.
Pragmatic sauce for the goose
is pragmatic sauce for the gander.
That's one way give a good uppercut to developers who are trusting you. So now Sun completely controls Java. They're reneged on their promises now that developers have put alot of time and effort into Java, because they believed in it, and they believed Sun was making their best effort to move it to a standardized base, and do things for the good of Java, which, in the end, is for the good of then.
Suddenly, *WHAM*. We need to protect our investment.
Goodbye good 'ole Sun, HELLO Microsoft II.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Then there are the classes, that is the bread and butter of java. Sun wants to control that. Let them, the classes suck. Look at the performance of java, a good portion of it is due to classes. The classes are at least half of java's biggest problem, it's slow. JFC makes the problem even worse. JFC is a slow framework built on top of a slow framework. Not standardizing the classes could be a huge bonus for Java is IBM and some others go ahead and push to standardize it anyway and have to roll their own.
Honestly, I think we need to start looking ahead. Java missed it, it's nothing compared to what the hype had it made out to be and it never will be any of that. Java is best at providing a lingua franca for custom apps you never want to touch again. It's not ready for prime-time in the general programming arena and it probably never will be. We need to develop a structure and way to plug perl, python, tcl, etc.. into mozilla. We need to start our own active scripting and active content platform and let the world take notice and start copying it. What did java do to the web? It made icons bounce, allowed for some vector graphics, played sounds, I feel pretty confident we can do all that with perl. I bet we can come up with a ton of cool things that we can do with perl in a web browser and a way to make it safe.
As for portability and all that, we do pretty good with perl, python, and source code. GTK+ and QT are the big things anyways. GUIs have always been the pain in porting stuff.
Actually, though I've never tried it, I think rm -rf / might be worse than rm -rf ~, the latter would only nuke your home directory, but if you have files somewhere else (and can delete them) the former will nuke the lot (assuming the OS will allow rm -rf / to work at all for non-root users)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Is ECMA a legitimate standards body?
Are they producing standards that help to advance the state of the art?
The reason I ask this is because my only previous knowledge of ECMA is the certification that JavaScript (aka ECMAscript) went through. If memory serves, the ECMA group was chosen over other more well known standards organizations because it was thought to be easier to influence, thereby orchestrating the outcome. Ever since then, I have wondered about this organization.
Now, ECMA is in the news again. But, this time, a Slashdot community member posts a link to the ECMA Web Site. So I have the opportunity to check out the roster of member companies. If you look at them, you will note that practically every one is a multinational that is not based in Europe.
I guess that this point, in itself, doesn't say much. Except that there must have been a much bigger number of true European companies in ECMA back when it was founded in 1961. But, then I notice that at least one European computer manufacturer that I know of, Bull isn't a member. Neither is Nokia, although Ericsson is.
There is an organizing body in the sport of boxing known as the IBF. It was created as an alternative to the WBA and WBC, and seems to exist for the sole purpose of having an alternate slate of champions who can challenge one of the more established sanctioning bodies' champions.
So, my ultimate question is, does ECMA serve the same role in the technology world that the IBF appears to serve in the boxing world?
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
In my view (and I am not speaking for my employer) this should assuage the developer's fears of not having the standards body oversee the process.
This URL has more information.
-- We have been doing so much with so little for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Sun owns the trademark and the original source code.
Why doesn't ECMA simply go ahead and standardize the same thing under another name
They're considering this, but the big problem is that everybody involved already has a license from Sun.
It's possible to write a jvm from scratch (e.g., kaffe), but most companies licensed the platform from Sun in order to port it. And with that license comes a lot of conditions.
If ECMA made changes without Sun, virtually nobody could implement those changes without violating the original contract with Sun. Remember, that's pretty much what they nailed MS for: using the licensed platform to implement something other than a Sun-approved java implementation.
By letting everyone see the source, Sun has actually manage to tighten the license even more.
Proving a cleanroom implementation after your development staff has pored over the java code for a few years is not going to be easy.
The thing to do in Mozilla would be to set up the language interface so you could plug anything in there. Perl, Python and Scheme would all make interesting web languages and I suspect they'd all be more portable than Java.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
A web applet language [snip...]
That opening line destroyed whatever credibility you could have established as someone who knows what he/she is talking about. Java is not, has not or ever will be a web applet language in fact what the fsck is a web applet language?
IIRC, Java was originally designed for embedded systems and workstations/servers. That's why the VM and portability was the main push behind the language. With the advent of the World Wide Web, Sun added a few tricks to Java and enabled people to write web applets. The funny thing though, is that now Java is primarily seen not as a GUI development language (better use C++ or VB if your a pseudo-programmer) but as a quick and powerful server side development language.
Bad Command Or File Name
Do you really think that if Linux wasn't based almost entirely on pre-existings standards, and a well-known defacto standard called Unix (heard of it?) that Linus would have had any possibility of putting together what the Linux kernel has grown to be?
It is NOT Linus's vision of what the kernel needed that holds the Linux project together. It's everybody's vision of what Unix is that does that.
Comparing Java to Linux is an incredibly flawed analogy.
There are differences between what Sun is doing and what Microsoft has done. (And this analogy is getting really tired of being trotted out for any company Redhat's size or larger.) First, Microsoft does not license their Windows technology to anyone. (Wince doesn't count.) This is just not true. Microsoft will license their OS to you if you have enough money. In fact, it is even possible to get the source. I believe several universities have source code to NT for use in graduate programs. I'm sure they don't allow you to give away your product based on NT, but they will license it.
Note: I have no first hand experience with this, but I have good information from several reliable sources saying this.
Sun licenses their technology to anyone that wants to pay the fees. In fact, Sun would be happy if they never had to do their own JVM implementations. They would be content to provide a reference implementation and compatability testing.
In some ways I agree with this, but not completely. If Sun wanted to never implement another VM, they would make it a lot easier to get the code. If they open source it, they will never have to implement it again. I'm not an open source bigot. I like open source software, but I recognize that currently some things need to be closed. A language like Java does not seem to be one of them. They want to control where the language goes. I feel this is the real reason Sun keeps a short leash on java. It also explains their 100% pure java program and such things.
I think Sun is a good company in many ways. I like aspects of their hardware. I even like parts of their OS. Watch out for them. They already do some scary things. Do you think you can stick a normal IDE drive in one of their IDE ultras? Good luck, It has to be sun branded.
--
Mike Mangino Consultant, Analysts International
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
> C++ sucks because Stroustrup didn't know when to quit
Why do people all of a sudden become such expert on judging a language. A professional, experienced and good programmer can surely use C++ in a perfectly nice way. Besides you're not bound by all those stupid restrictions imposed in java.
Why is Open Inventor, or Qt or any other nice OO library based on C++ if it's such a bad language.
Java is a nice language "platform independent" language. But fast? NONONO!
Just couldn't help myself. Don't mean to use my flamethrower, but I just can't stand people giving statements without foundation.
Now for the real topic. Personally I think Sun is better of without going through the ECMA Standards body with Java. They did a good job designing the language and I trust they'll do a good job keeping control and developing the language in the interest of thousands of programmers currently commited to use java. Why? Because it's not impossible for another company like M$ to create a new language and too much effort and time is invested that they can't afford anything else.
Any yes, I've got a bad carma. That's because I can't be bothered writing long, intelligent comments. I'll just leave that to the others.... (I'm to busy programming)
Seriously, I don't expect this to be a huge problem. In fact, now Sun pretty much has to ensure backward compatibility and a slow rate of change to the language, or they alone will face a worldwide mob of angry designers. I don't think Sun's original goals have changed, and the possibility of relationships with other standards organizations still exists.
On a related note, things like Verilog HDL aren't formally standardized, but the world happily uses them anyway. I'd say keep using Java (though you may not want to throw away your "C++: How To Program").
The language spec, while good, is incomplete and outdated. There is no library spec publicly available. The two-volume (plus supplement) Java Class Libraries set from Addison-Wesley is pretty good, but they have many errors and by no means qualify as a specification: There is way insufficient information to write a compatible implementation (though they help). (I speak from experience as the former technical lead for Gcj.)
The documentation for Swing is even worse, with no real documentation out there beyond the very terse javadoc-generated api documentation. I have found one book (from O'Reilly) that goes into any detail on the Swing text classes.
There are differences between what Sun is doing and what Microsoft has done. (And this analogy is getting really tired of being trotted out for any company Redhat's size or larger.)
First, Microsoft does not license their Windows technology to anyone. (Wince doesn't count.)
Sun licenses their technology to anyone that wants to pay the fees. In fact, Sun would be happy if they never had to do their own JVM implementations. They would be content to provide a reference implementation and compatability testing.
Hmmm... Microsoft does license Windows to people - many universities have the source code. So do many companies.
Microsoft charges for everything.
Sun gives JDK, JRE, etc. away for free... and has even made the JDK more free.
Sorry, but that's complete and utter rubbish.
Microsoft gives away all kinds of things for free, including a C & C++ compiler, assembler, over 2GB of sample code, documentation and libraries, plus lots of other freebie tools. They give away more than Sun has given away by a factor of 10, and have done so for YEARS.
You might want to check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/ some time... you'll be surprised (well, I don't know that for sure - but going off what you're claiming in your post, you'll be very surprised by the reality of what Microsoft gives away).
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Take Mesa for example, it has not passed any OpenGL standards and aside from not being able to call itself OpenGL it works fine as a replacement to OpenGL. The problem lies when companies like Microsoft begin to "enhance" the platform, but Sun already sued MS's arses for that so not to many people are likely to try it again.
The poster's comment above about using UAE as a virtual machine actually has some real merit. The Amiga is a very clean environment, and you can emulate one very nicely on a P2/400 or so.
Even if everyone thinks using UAE is stupid, I think it's a good proof of concept. The Amiga is a ridiculously complex design, amazingly hard to emulate, and yet the developers of UAE have managed to get an emulation running pretty damn fast. At one time, it was widely believed to be an impossible feat.
If they can make a virtual Amiga run as well as it does, it seems likely that a clean, simple virtual machine design would run very quickly indeed. The 68000-series architecture wouldn't be a bad choice. Even a virtual Atari ST might work pretty well, if that abomination of a desktop was replaced with something else.
After thinking about this a few minutes, I think the Amiga would be a better choice. Strip out the custom chip emulation layers and do a pure-CPU Amiga OS in a virtual machine. It wouldn't have memory protection, but wouldn't need it; if you want to run more than one VM program, start more VMs. It would be multithreaded and highly efficient. The total footprint of the device would probably be under 2MB... including 512K of RAM for the Amiga OS to work with.
It seems like such an obvious solution that I'm wondering why it hasn't been done. Ideas?
I set up a mailing list, got a group going, and we started to go into our design phase. We looked at the new features that were going to go into 1.2 and decided to wait for 1.2 to come out and the spec to settle down. We shelved the effort until that point.
We never started up again. The java spec went all over the place and I decided that I didn't like Java for one of the same reasons I don't like Microsoft -- I don't want to be a member of the API of the week club. I have better things to do with my time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think Java could only be helped by removing it from Sun's control.
The difficulty with any language or standard which is controlled solely by a corporation which stands to profit from its control is that the company will naturally move to protect its control.
Other companies (Microsoft!) will move to undermine control or use of that standard, regardless of technical merit.
This only undermines the advance in computing technology as major corporations fight over market share rather than promoting the best tools available.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
You assume much about Sun that isn't necessarily true..
You assume that Sun will make decisions for the best of the language, and for the best of those who use it.
However, Sun will make decisions based upon making Sun more popular with pointy-haired types, and investors, and making Sun's stock price go up.
The best thing for the Java language, to make it popular, would be to release a bunch of code with a real open source licence, not the SCSL. However, Sun has to keep control, in order to reserve the option of milking more money out of it.
That's why a standards body would be better. Sun wouldn't have that last-resort lever to pull; preserving their copyrights, trademarks, and other "intellectual property".
You'd be better off with perl or scheme in your search for a portable language. I'm hoping someone embeds a Perl interpreter in Mozilla at some point. I'd take that over Java any day.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They already tried ISO, and they walked out on that as well..
This was their last chance..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
It is only when the control is too tight that programmers and users suffer.
Actually, programmers and users could suffer if they have no recourse if the maintainer happens to go off his/her/its rocker. With Linux and other open source projects, you could split and start your own project. You have the code. It doesn't matter if Linus goes insane one day and decides that we should implement a talking paperclip as an integral part of the kernel. Everyone can just turn to the next sane person who can take the reigns and pick up right where Linus lost his head. Everyone will follow this project and it will supplant the old.
Is that possible with Java? I've seen many people say that there isn't enough info to create a complete implementation of Java. Even if they did, could they do anything with it without being sued? I'm truly curious about all this. Anyone got the answers?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
According to the article Sun thinks Java can stand on its own. In other words, Sun is saying "We don't need you anymore; we write our own ticket from now on" to ECMA.
They seem to be saying "we don't need you-you need us" to developers too (SCSL?). They might have been better off not portraying themselves as the knight in shining armor, then abandoning that role once it had any disadvantages (at least short-term). At least with Microsoft, developers have no illusions about motive; you know what you get there.
There may be a lot of scorned developers out there who react like they have been betrayed by Sun. If that happens, we will find out if Sun "doesn't need you anymore."
This poster is a fake. Notice the period at the end of his name.
My user # is 57473.
This will hurt Java in the short-term since it will be more difficult to develope code that will be portable to [the now non-existent] Java 2 standardized platform. However, I don't think that this will negatively affect the Java language itself in the long run. Java as a language will live or die on its own merits, of which I believe that it has many. It is a type-safe language built from the ground up to support OOP. For thirty years, C has withstood the test of time despite not _ever_ having a standard platform; the same assessment applies to C++ as well. A careful programmer can exploit the benefits of the language while mantaining portability and efficiency using the same methods that he/she have always used. Sun's decision will probably help Java in the end because of this.
--
Flames? Think I'm a karma whore?
It looks to me like Sun is looking for a standards body who will put their name behind Java, while letting Sun handle the actual "standardization" process. Unsuprisingly, they're not finding a body to do this.
So, who's left? I seem to recall they've already tried ISO, they've tried ECMA, and they're sure to get the same reception with the IETF.
This article (in german) tells us that "the head of technical commitee 41, Michael Wheatley (IBM), possibly wants to continue with the standardization of Java even without Sun's support.
It can use Java if you have it, and on some systems comes with it's own copy of the JVM. But then Netscape uses Java too...
It isn't written in Java and can run quite happily without a JVM on the system - as it does on my RedHat6.1 home PC.
I can only assume it's because it's so slow and such a memory hog that people make this assumption ;O)
I guess they own the trademark, and a bunch of the code that's out there... but do they own other intellectual property involved, or is everyone simply worried about fragmentation?
Why doesn't ECMA simply go ahead and standardize the same thing under another name... perhaps the contracts that the current players in the Java industry have disallow them from going it "together" against Sun alone?
See, I'm speculating. It would be nice if someone who knew the answers could chime in.
Python is distributed under a BSD-ish license that allows people to fork off their own, if they don't like what Guido is doing. In fact, this has happened several times (Ka-Ping Yee's extensions, Viperi, Stackless). Because of the way that the language is set up (small language, rich modules), it's unlikely that a corporation will be able to usurp the language by adding in rich proprietary features and not distributing the code. It's very possible that one might distribute nice closed source modules, but that could happen with any language. Aside from the fact that it's non-GPL, RMS probably wouldn't complain about the control issue.
So far, Sun's Java specs are explicitly open: you can use them to build your own compatible implementation (you just can't call it "Java"). And Sun's Java specs are detailed and quite complete. This is in stark contrast to the Win32 API specs, which are so poorly documented that for practical purposes, it's not possible to make a complete independent implementation.
However, dropping the standardization effort also is bad PR because it gives the impression that Sun is renegging on their commitments.
One point of concern is that Sun every now and then seems to make some fuzzy claims about intellectual property related to the Java APIs. No matter who drives the evolution of the Java platform (Sun or a standards body), those parts of the Java specs would clearly not be acceptable to most users of Java, and that is something users need clarity on up-front.
If Sun does make IP claims related to parts of the APIs (rather than their implementation), that would be a serious matter and would have to be identified up front. That is a point, I think, Sun needs to be pressed on so that we don't end up in a situation analogous to GIF/Unisys. Those APIs would likely be only a small part of the Java platform and easily replaced by alternative de-facto standards developed outside Sun.
I've been to many JavaOne conferences, and a few of the other presentations when this topic comes up. All kinds of people have their own little pet additions to Java. Multiple inheritence is one. Do people miss it? Sure. Do they need it? NO. I've been programming in Java professionally for four and half years now (since the day it went public). I've never ONCE run into a situation where I've been stopped by this. And you know what? The code is cleaner because of it. Say what you want, but multiple inheritence is just a huge mess for the next poor slob that has to maintain the code.
What's the point of that rant? Without Sun (and mainly Gosling and Guy Steel) holding the reigns on the Java up until this point, all kinds of confusing crapola would have been added to the language (just look at what Microsmurf tried to add), and it would have gone from a simple, elegant language to a huge mess.
I think Sun (specifically the team of people that keep an eye on what to add) has been doing a pretty darn good job so far. Without the people who knew from the beginning what the original intent of the language was, Java would have degenerated into a mismash of crap.
Very true. Let's not also forget to look at just what ECMA has done for JavaScript compatibility. Very little. I see at least three different implementations out there, probably a heck of a lot more. All need to be ``written to''. Sigh.
"Integrity" is such a nice word, innit? It gives you the warm fuzzy feeling that there's somehow something pure and holy there that's being kept sacrasanct, out of the dirty hands of the teeming masses. Sun Microsystems, noble defenders of the "integrity" of Java2, stalwart bastions of truth and light against the unwashed heathens that would taint their singular manifest vision.
Merriam-Webster defines integrity as, among other things, "an unimpaired condition : soundness." So, Sun is protecting Java2 from the "impairment" of the standards process. Standards are somehow "unsound." Sun is saying that Java2 becoming a standard will somehow innately taint, corrupt, or poison the platform.
Merriam-Webster also defines integrity as "firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility." Aha. So Sun keeping Java outside of the standards process is an issue of morals? "It's a moral decision, Doc, and I'll stand by it." Sun-as-priesthood, handing down proclamations on morailty to the ignorant masses who are too immoral and corrupt to See The Java Vision(tm) themselves.
Finally, M-W defines integrity as "the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness." Here's the cruz of the matter: control. The One True Java, Sun's Java. The Java Above Which There Is No Other. I-AM-Brand Java. Thou Shalt Not Worship Other Java's Besides Sun's. Sun fears the fork, more than anything.
None of these observations is earth-shattering news, but it's interesting (to me, at least), to look at how Sun has doctored and spun this story with the use of that single word, "integrity."
--
Java promised us a compile once, run anywhere solution, and for a few years, it looked like we would get it.
Well, we didn't; and we aren't going to out of java, not for a long time.
I think its time that we consider abandoning java, and starting up a new program. The real wonder of Java is, and should have remained, its virtual machine, and if Sun had developed a robust VM, and kept it seperate from the language, then developing for the VM would be just like developing for any other computer archetecture, and we could have used our languages of choice and cross-compiled to the VM.
In addition, an independant VM would have less security issues than a merged language/VM, and it would become easier to maintain the sandbox.
In conclusion, we need an OS VM, and you can write C, I will write C++, and my buddy will write Fortran and Assembler, and they will all run on it.
-Crutcher
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I'm not sure turning Java over to a standards commitee would be a good thing. Commitees move slowly, they bicker, and ultimately there's no legal reason why individual companies have to abide by the standards (e.g. C). For something as politically charged as Java, it's possible that we may need a company like Sun behind it to sue companies like Microsoft that deviate from the standards. Yes, Java needs to be more open, but I don't think turning Java over to a standards commitee will make things any better than they are now.
I never missed MI, but that's just me. Some API classes emulate MI by using several interfaces that a class must implement.
You're absolutely right about the simplicity and elegance - it really hurts to look at a medium-sized project in C with tons of ifdefs and other crap like that once you've worked with Java.
I see IBM (and HP also) as entirely different than MS here and can not see them developing their own versions of Java. It makes sense for MS to bastardize Java because they are enitrely for the proprietization of the language to the Windows platform. They have nothing else but Windows and do not desire their "enhancements" be available on anything else. IBM and HP on the other hand have a much larger set of platforms which they support in various ways. In the case of IBM, polluting Java would require polluting it for OS/390, OS400, AIX, as well as Windows, Linux and many other operating systems that they often make their products available for. IBM is very concerned about portability as many of their software applications run on several (or more) platforms. Just check pretty much any product at www.software.ibm.com and you will likely see that the product you look at is available on several platforms (MQSeries is available for well over 20 different platforms and is not alone). IBM is making a big push in the Java arena already specifically for its platform independence and development speed, polluting Java would not make sense for them. This is an investment which they have already made and very likely will continue to do so and not by bastardizing the language.
Indeed, standardization only slows things down. Java is evolving rapidly, any standard would be obsolete before it has gone through the acceptation procedure. I.e. a standard has little other than marketing value.
If you look at standardization of Java, there's three things that can be standardized:
- the language
- the bytecode
- the API
Standardizing the language at this point would not be a good thing since interesting language extensions are being developed at the moment (classes with parameters). As long as the extended languages are backwards compatible that's ok with me.
Standardizing the bytecode would probably be not very harmful but I don't see any immediate advantages either. The bytecode and the VM have been pretty well described already and anybody can make a cleanroom implementation of it. As far as I know the specs have been very stable. It should be possible to compile old jdk 1.02 programs with the latest JDK and run the resulting bytecode on an old java VM (provided the new API doesn't clash with the old one).
Standardizing the API is rediculous. The java API is a moving target, functionality is being added continuously and the existing API is also perfected from time to time. Fixing the API is not a good thing since I want new functionality and I want those errors fixed in the existing API. In any case a standard API would be lagging behind the current version of the API making it pretty much useless.
Jilles
Now that they own StarOffice, is this move an indication of things to come. IE. will future versions of StarOffice only run on SUN's Java VM?
ABIWord is looking better and better.
Finkployd
Unfortunately with standard bodies, you get way too much politiking. This company wants something implemented this way. This company wants something implemented that way. The group decides to implement it as a combination of both ways, which is ACTUALLY worse than either method alone. Let's look at a heavily standard influenced language. ADA, need I say more? Argh, nice ideas, but try writing a compiler for it. Sometimes simpler is better.
Josh
linux must be released from the tyranny of linus torvalds and full control of the kernel should be turned over to a byzantine european standards body composed of retirees from groupe bull and versace who will spend 6 years arguing over the relative merits of creating a steering group to debate an initiative to consider adding better smp capabilities
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
I listen in on the ISO JTC1 SC22 list (http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/JSG/) where a lot of the ECMA people also go, and the reaction has been universally hostile to Sun. Many people are anxious to go ahead with or without Sun.
In the end, Sun will sue their asses before letting them define a spec, so it will come to nothing.
Sorry if that's incoherent, I'm in a distracted mood ATM.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Sun wants to control the development of the language. They don't want other companies like HP and Microsoft polluting it for their personal gain. I'm in no way saying Sun is a saint and they couldn't do things better..
I become very cynical toward those who think open source is the answer to every issue and because someone has control of code they are unenlighten individuals that are beneath them. Companies make money.. that's the point.. I'm still amazed there isn't so much backlash against RedHat because they sell open source software. They make money off your work.. But it's not ok for Sun to control and make money off their own work.
Java was created for 1 reason. To sell Sun servers. The more programs in Java, the more portable and the less control Microsoft has over Sun. If in anyway Sun can lose control over the direction Java goes, then HP, IBM, Microsoft, or someone else can add extentions that cause it not to be platform independent and that will spell the end of Java's purpose, to sell servers.
I personally would love a open source standard, but not at the expense of portability. Sun offers me a free JDK that I can code whatever I want and do what I please. If I remember correctly you can still get the JDK source code and can still fix bugs, but you can't go and sell it.. Gee.. There's a big loss.. not!
It's the price you pay.. You want portability or fragmentation.
Since Sun obviously can't be trusted to do the right thing as far as opening this platform up I don't install any Java VM on my Linux boxen. Support an open object API for Linux, support GNUstep.
Java is over. The future belongs to Objective-C.
Night
And ANSI standards haven't done any damage at all to C, FORTRAN, COBOL, SQL, or any of the other languages that have ANSI committees to define them. C++ sucks because Stroustrup didn't know when to quit. -jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
A web applet language should be well integrated with HTML, not segregated into little square windows. Does anyone remember Curl? Not the web grabber, but the lispish thing with curly brackets at MIT. It was a brilliant idea. It replaced HTML, Java, Javascript, Flash, etc. with one quite adequate language. Unfortunately, nobody seems interested in replacing HTML.
A run-anywhere platform should not be tied to specially designed languages. You should be able to compile your C into bytecode that will run on any system. It wouldn't be a big deal to implement, many game emulators do a bigger job. You'd have to provide a low-level window library, but that's really no big deal (the insanity begins when you try to make a high-level window library, and anticipate everything the programmer might want to use).
Let's face it, Java went as far as it did on a huge marketing campaign, not on its technical merits. It didn't deliver on its promises, and those not caught up in the trendiness saw that it never could. Let's not waste any more time with it.
I know this is going to sound like pure flamage, but I can't help myself.
.
Let Sun take over Java. Let them keep it closed and proprietary. As far as I'm concerned, Sun really hasn't delivered on ANY of their promises for Java, and even the Microsoft lawsuit was really a slap in the face to folks who took it seriously (ie. it's something to keep pure, so we hadn't ought to compromise it, so Sun better have the cujones to make sure nobody else does).
I'd have to say that I'm convinced that 100% of Java's success has to do with media hype and people buying into ANY hope of being able to slip loose the Microsoft shackles. Hadn't delivered on THAT promise yet either, has it?
It's slow, it's buggy, it sure as hell isn't cross platform. So who really cares about Java anyway. Oh, poor Steve Jobs (chuckle - chuckle). All that effort that went into OS X to integrate Java into OpenStep/YellowBox/Cocoa, and now it's going to be MORE irrelevant than Objective-C. HA HA! Stupid sucker.
Okay, I'll go seek counselling - I really have to work on my corporate sarcasm problem. It was mommy's fault. .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
More than enough. I like C, but C++ is too much. Sooner or later C++ is going to do to C what Algol 68 did to Algol.
If we think about this a little more we may see that it may be a case of mismanaging expectations. Sun was going to release Java to the standards body but did a 180. However, all the licensing and community process that Sun had done is far better than most anything done by Microsoft. Have you seen MFC in any standards body? It's sort of like when companies give bonuses. Let's say that I work for a company that gives no bonuses. You work for one that regularly gives bonuses. Now when your company cuts your bonus in half you whine like mad. You're still getting more of a bonus than me and I'm not whining! So when Sun cuts back on what we're expecting, even when it is more than what most other vendors provide, we still a whine like mad.
Fizgig most likely means an assembler to emit compiled Python bytecode, much in the same way that a traditional assembler puts out compiled x86 bytecode (i.e. instructions), as opposed to compiling Python (the language) into Python bytecode.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?