""" I agree. Who wants to spend a *lot* of time mastering a language that's controlled by some commercial entity, and then have them turn around and change the rules in the middle of the game? It doesn't matter how good the language is, or how many people are using it. """
""" Then Java should not be an open standard, and should also be fully ignored by developers until Gosling can find the time in his schedule to complete the language. No developer in his right mind wants to code in any closed language that may change drastically in the forseeable future. """
It seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone should also ignore C and C++ and Unix ten years ago. They were all closed and proprietary and changed drastically, right? Remember BSD controversy?
Well, if everyone did that, there would be no Linux, no Perl and no Java. We would all use Microsoft Basic and happily share drives over NetBeui...
Seriously, the most portable environment ever is Squeak Smalltalk, Java (including JPython, Kawa, etc. ) and VW Smalltalk are second best. Perl and Python are far behind. They simply have too much Unixish dependencies in standard library and existing code to be truly portable.
And try porting ActivePerl script which uses thousand wonders of COM and Windoze to Linux sometime...
> This is what ISO does. They give you rules for > opening compeition.
I beg to differ. Existence of ISO C++ standard has done _nothing_ to prevent Micro$oft or Inprise from polluting the language with proprietary extensions.
Face it: Reasonably complex Visual C++ apps are about as portable as Visual Basic ones. Hell, VB ones are way more portable, thanks to VB emulators for JVM and Linux.
No. Source for Java is controlled by whoever writes the implementation. Sun only controls the trademark and that stupid steaming coffee cup logo.
> Soon one will diverge. Then there will be > "Kaffe-Java" and "Microsoft Java" and all sorts > of flavors of Java. > ISO standardization prevents this.
ISO doesn't prevent that at all. Consider C++, which is ISO standard. C++ is so badly fragmented that many "standard" compilers can't even compile compliant C++ code, let alone proprietary extensions.
The only thing which prevents fragmentation to some extent is a good reference implementation and testing suite which you can rely upon. ISO doesn't help you with that.
> As for perl dovergence, so far it has not > happened
> perl is far more portable than java. > Python too.
Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl and Python, with exception of JPython which is as portable as Java. The only thing which is more portable than java is Squeak.
From someone who uses Python and Java every day.
> Even Sun has toned down the cross-platform > rhetoric now that they realize it cannot be > made a reality.
Doesn't look like that at all.
> Java will certainly go the same way as Sun > morphs it into something more useful with > Jini or whatever their latest plan is.
> Java could have ranked up there with perl as > one of the great languages of the 90's, but now, > at least in my mind, it has been resigned to bit > bucket with all of the other closed go-nowhere > languages that clutter the development > landscape.
Dylan language and its two existing implementations are rather primitive compared to:
http://www.mozart-oz.org/
or
http://www.erlang.org/
.. and often even Java. For instance: Java lets you dynamicaly construct and load arbitrary class at runtime and also checks code validity. Dylan can't do that.
Wrapping variables (state) in objects is one of the basic ideas of object oriented programming. I don't think that the concept of passing variables by reference is meaningful in OO language like Java.
IMNSHO, Java string classes are OK. I like them.
As for Perl: I don't like it. It's too baroque. Sometimes even medieval.
Slashdot Mirror
>> HTTP, HTML, ASCII, or TCP/IP
> Um, all of them.
Wrong. ASCII.
"""
I agree. Who wants to spend a *lot* of time mastering a language that's controlled by some commercial entity, and then have them turn around and change the rules in the middle of the game? It doesn't matter how good the language is, or how many people are using it.
"""
This could be said of Unix twenty years ago.
"""
...
Then Java should not be an open standard, and should also be fully ignored by developers until Gosling can find the time in his schedule to complete the language. No developer in his right mind wants to code in any closed language that may change drastically in the forseeable future.
"""
It seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone should also ignore C and C++ and Unix ten years ago. They were all closed and proprietary and changed drastically, right? Remember BSD controversy?
Well, if everyone did that, there would be no Linux, no Perl and no Java. We would all use Microsoft Basic and happily share drives over NetBeui
>> Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl
;-)
...
> surely you jest.
No, I fork()
Seriously, the most portable environment ever is Squeak Smalltalk, Java (including JPython, Kawa, etc. ) and VW Smalltalk are second best. Perl and Python are far behind. They simply have too much Unixish dependencies in standard library and existing code to be truly portable.
And try porting ActivePerl script which uses thousand wonders of COM and Windoze to Linux sometime
> This is what ISO does. They give you rules for > opening compeition.
I beg to differ. Existence of ISO C++ standard has done _nothing_ to prevent Micro$oft or Inprise from polluting the language with proprietary extensions.
Face it: Reasonably complex Visual C++ apps are about as portable as Visual Basic ones. Hell, VB ones are way more portable, thanks to VB emulators for JVM and Linux.
> You wouldn't have HTTP, HTML, ASCII, or TCP/IP
And which of the above is ISO standard?
> Yes. Sun controls the source for Java.
No. Source for Java is controlled by whoever writes the implementation. Sun only controls
the trademark and that stupid steaming coffee
cup logo.
> Soon one will diverge. Then there will be
> "Kaffe-Java" and "Microsoft Java" and all sorts > of flavors of Java.
> ISO standardization prevents this.
ISO doesn't prevent that at all. Consider C++, which is ISO standard. C++ is so badly fragmented that many "standard" compilers can't even compile compliant C++ code, let alone proprietary extensions.
The only thing which prevents fragmentation to some extent is a good reference implementation and testing suite which you can rely upon. ISO doesn't help you with that.
> As for perl dovergence, so far it has not
> happened
One word: ActivePerl alias (blech) M$ PerlScript
> Closed languages should be avoided.
They should, but Java is not closed.
www.kaffe.org
www.classpath.org
www.gjt.org
> perl is far more portable than java.
> Python too.
Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl and Python, with exception of JPython which is as portable as Java. The only thing which is more portable than java is Squeak.
From someone who uses Python and Java every day.
> Even Sun has toned down the cross-platform
> rhetoric now that they realize it cannot be
> made a reality.
Doesn't look like that at all.
> Java will certainly go the same way as Sun
> morphs it into something more useful with
> Jini or whatever their latest plan is.
ROTFL. Jini is a Java library.
> Java could have ranked up there with perl as
> one of the great languages of the 90's, but now,
> at least in my mind, it has been resigned to bit
> bucket with all of the other closed go-nowhere
> languages that clutter the development > landscape.
Closed?
http://www.classpath.org/
http://www.kaffe.org/
http://www.japhar.org/
http://www.cygnus.com/
I wouldn't call GPL and LGPL "closed".
And yes, where is ISO standard for Perl?
Dylan language and its two existing implementations are rather primitive compared to:
http://www.mozart-oz.org/
or
http://www.erlang.org/
.. and often even Java. For instance: Java lets you dynamicaly construct and load arbitrary class at runtime and also checks code validity. Dylan can't do that.
Wrapping variables (state) in objects is one of the basic ideas of object oriented programming. I don't think that the concept of passing variables by reference is meaningful in OO language like Java.
IMNSHO, Java string classes are OK. I like them.
As for Perl: I don't like it. It's too baroque. Sometimes even medieval.
> I for one will not touch Java until it is fully opened up.
Well, you'd better start coding. Kaffee is GPL, Classpath and Japhar are LGPL.