Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BGB Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:04:10 -0700 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 73 Message-ID: References: <4eb0a862$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.albasani.net Lxd09R9XTBPTkmuhe6cK+d41mHSUrM9n28OsKrpSMOuYfqI6OSHM+piZx0u8dLYLPMqVhe0p0fcFEC/XbC0TPg== NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="cBYebxZF57B+rc8dagbsuNsSxn3Eh5hmMigSZKgLjcMAbcorW6H9YI+FOTF1vy53KGcY6CNzixUrHvhm+uw4m6uRv0yDfkzc6ovaYOKXI0z3whhWCPLUwo/jLg1x0YQu"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:IW2RWr7jBRBIcNnbvW4lnhh43pw= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9379 On 11/2/2011 8:28 AM, markspace wrote: > On 11/1/2011 10:35 PM, BGB wrote: > >> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> Why should the question whether Google infringed on >>> Oracle copyright or patents affect your choice of >>> programming language? > >> maybe because it asserts that Java is not a free/open technology, and is >> essentially a proprietary product owned by Oracle?... > > > I disagree with this. If you seen the APIs used by Google in their > apps, you'd see how different those APIs are from Swing or AWT. > Essentially the entire app is not compatible with any other JVM > because of Google's changes. > > You can say it sucks that people can't extend the language > arbitrarily, but it also sucks trying to suss out incompatible APIs, > libraries, systems, and whatever else vendors dream up. We've tried > the later, it's time to be honest and admit that single standard is > the way to go, not multiple competing standards. > > I understand Oracles suit better now that I've investigated Android a > little and I agree with it. Google made too many changes to properly > call it Java. (All of those changes are arguably better, but they're > still incompatible with the base APIs. I'd rather have compatible > than "better" in this case, at least until the entire Java API can be > moved to the new stuff. It's market fragmentation that I object to > most.) > but, the alternative would be to make it more like C or C++, where there are a number of variants and a "generally accepted" / common / standard subset. for Java, such a subset would be roughly along the lines of J2ME or similar. likely, whether or not to have AWT or Swing could generally be recommended, but maybe technically optional. despite there being many variations between, say, Linux and Windows (or between GCC and MSVC), there are still a good number of apps which work on both. in this case, there are a fair number of systems with compiler/OS/... specific extensions, and in general it all works fairly well (one just enables/disables/... things on a per-target basis). granted, it could be a little harder to make this work well with Java due to the lack of any real direct analogue of "#ifdef" or similar (although, for portable bytecode it would make more sense to delay conditional compilation to JIT-time or similar, so one can use the same binaries with multiple targets...). this is a little closer to the path I am following for my HLL (which mostly builds on calling C functions and APIs via the FFI, and gradually/eventually building a J2ME-like subset class library, although it is significantly modified and most packages have been renamed). but, anyways, for example, someone could make an extended form of Java which adds ifdef's, say as an attribute or similar: @ifdef(HAS_SWING) { ... } or, maybe using a more C-like syntax (but with different behavior). or such...