X-Received: by 10.66.82.37 with SMTP id f5mr558406pay.27.1359055817360; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:30:17 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.220.231 with SMTP id pz7mr1043795igc.8.1359055817031; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:30:17 -0800 (PST) Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!f6no14976058pbd.1!news-out.google.com!s9ni15096pbb.0!nntp.google.com!ld4no14952980pbb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:30:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.28.149.29 References: <50ff7620$0$80163$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <90OLs.55298$Ep5.21372@newsfe08.iad> <51008bba$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <57314aab-e4dd-408b-9b13-213e1842c624@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: The Revenge of the Geeks From: Lew Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:30:17 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:21661 BGB wrote: > Arne Vajh=EF=BF=BDj wrote: >> BGB wrote: >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>> BGB wrote: ... [Arved] >>>> So I would disagree with both you and Kevin that "streamlining" the co= re >>>> language is all that important. You can't do enough of it to core Java >>>> to make it worthwhile, without major changes. So why bother now? What'= s >>>> important actually *are* those "high cost, high complexity EE >>>> libraries", plus the later SE/EE-agnostic libraries like concurrency. >=20 >>> yes, but the lack of polish for the core language doesn't really make Facts not in evidence. >>> using Java a particularly attractive option when contrasted against, >>> say, C++ or C#. >=20 >> I don't think Java should worry about C++. For business apps, then >> C++ is not really an option. And business apps is what Java is good >> at. >=20 > some of us never go anywhere near business apps though... And therefore don't use Java, if they don't choose. Doesn't say anything=20 against Java as a platform. > ...=20 [Arved] >>>> 90% of developer productivity is achieved by adept and informed use of >>>> what other people have written: libraries. >=20 >>> potentially, but if a person can choose freely, all the major language >>> options have libraries. not necessarily all the same libraries, but >>> libraries none-the-less [sic] ... All automobiles have engines. Why would anyone ever buy a Ferrari? Java is notable for the extent and quality of the libraries bundled with th= e platform. >> Maybe in the SE space, but not in the EE space. And as Arne points out, the quality of the EE libraries are what make it su= ch a solid=20 spec. > AFAIK, Java EE costs money though, and I somehow suspect probably most=20 Wha...? JBoss, OpenEJB, Glassfish, Geronimo, ... > end-users have Java SE installed. Wha...? Do most end users have C++ installed? > but, in any case, with the other languages there are a wide range of=20 > libraries available, many under fairly open licenses (like MIT or BSD),= =20 Are these enterprise libraries suitable for the use cases that make Java do= minate? > and there is a lot more GPL stuff available, although GPL has some of=20 Apache, BSD, etc., etc., etc. Including those free Java EE systems that go farther than you know. > its own issues (can't really use GPL'ed code in developing proprietary=20 > software, ...). Which is why other licenses exist. --=20 Lew