I'm not sure if the author of the "editorial" could be considered a journalist. Although the copy is both poorly written and shorter than most README files that I've seen, the real problem with this article is that the author fails to construct any sort of logical agrument to support his opinion that, "Java is back!" He cites:
1) Google hits "java" vs "net"
Completely asinine, as has already been discussed on/. It's probably safe to say that Geelan has blow his credibility. May I suggest omitting "valuable" research like this from future articles, or, if not, at least have the self-respect to make the citation obviously tounge-in-cheek (perhaps by googling for "java sucks", "java rules", etc).
2) Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry
Almost worse than the "googlefight." Citing a blog may be a fine for something like another blog post, but can it really be considered support for the author's argument in this case? Perhaps an interview with Schwartz would have been appropriate...
3) Quote from David Berlind, ZDNet journalist
Berling says Java is a good choice. Who cares? Who is this guy? Does anyone else share my opinion that ZDNet is a sub-par news source?
4) San Jose Business Journal VC numbers
For those who hadn't already tuned out after the author made his dismal first point, Geelan finally presents a solid, logical defense to his argument. Java penetration is exploding on mobile handsets, and could be well poised to become a platform of choice for a wide range of devices from enterprise-class servers to smartcards. Geelan would have been well served to frame the entire discussion by leading with this argument.
Let us not forget that on the internet, no one knows that you're a dog; and thus a reader should always consider the source. In this case, one could guess that Geelan has a background in marketing and/or business development rather than some sort of strong technical background. The article does make more sense from a business/marketing perspective, but as a technical editorial, however, it falls flat. I doubt many well-informed techies would agree that "Java is back!", because it was never gone.
Slashdot Mirror
And the court thinks this decision will not stile creativity? WTF!?!
I'm not sure if the author of the "editorial" could be considered a journalist. Although the copy is both poorly written and shorter than most README files that I've seen, the real problem with this article is that the author fails to construct any sort of logical agrument to support his opinion that, "Java is back!" He cites:
/. It's probably safe to say that
1) Google hits "java" vs "net"
Completely asinine, as has already been discussed on
Geelan has blow his credibility. May I suggest omitting "valuable" research like this from future articles, or, if not, at least have the self-respect to make the citation obviously tounge-in-cheek (perhaps by googling for "java sucks", "java rules", etc).
2) Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry
Almost worse than the "googlefight." Citing a blog may be a fine for something like another blog post, but can it really be considered support for the author's argument in this case? Perhaps an interview with Schwartz would have been appropriate...
3) Quote from David Berlind, ZDNet journalist
Berling says Java is a good choice. Who cares? Who is this guy? Does anyone else share my opinion that ZDNet is a sub-par news source?
4) San Jose Business Journal VC numbers
For those who hadn't already tuned out after the author made his dismal first point, Geelan finally presents a solid, logical defense to his argument. Java penetration is exploding on mobile handsets, and could be well poised to become a platform of choice for a wide range of devices from enterprise-class servers to smartcards. Geelan would have been well served to frame the entire discussion by leading with this argument.
Let us not forget that on the internet, no one knows that you're a dog; and thus a reader should always consider the source. In this case, one could guess that Geelan has a background in marketing and/or business development rather than some sort of strong technical background. The article does make more sense from a business/marketing perspective, but as a technical editorial, however, it falls flat. I doubt many well-informed techies would agree that "Java is back!", because it was never gone.