Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9284 > unrolled thread

back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
                      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
                      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
                        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
                          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#9440

On 11/3/2011 1:41 AM, Cindy wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 3:10 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 9:49 PM, Cindy wrote:
>>> WTF is this?
>>
>> who knows, maybe a bot or just an annoying person with nothing better to
>> do.
>>
>> I have seen lots of this going on elsewhere on usenet before...
>>
>> also a lot of "arguments" between apparent characters (and accusing
>> random people of being one of those certain characters, and apparent
>> ping-ponging I think between the person/bot/... and themselves, ...).
>>
>> then, large volumes of posts which make a mess of a thread, and
>> sometimes the newsgroup as a whole, with piles of these stupid posts...
>
> Huh. Why'd they/he/she/it have to pick comp.lang.java.programmer? Surely
> there are more appropriate newsgroups for "coder"/"freckles"'s peculiar
> kink?

who knows...

I have just seen it around, mostly in the comp.* hierarchy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9428

On Nov 2, 5:36 pm, "coder", an obvious murphy sock, wrote:
NaN> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,sci.math,sci.physics

NaN> Hi (seamus) Derbyshire.

Who are "seamus" and "Derbyshire", murphy? There is nobody in this
newsgroup using either alias.

NaN> "Murphy's list applies".

What does your Lits o' Haet(tm) have to do with Java, math, or
physics, murphy?

NaN> Truth in Conclusions.

How ironic.

NaN> "At some point, can't we find a bit of charity for a guy who
looks to be in
NaN> for some real hellish times up ahead?"
NaN>                                 Andrew Jeanes - 1996

What does your quotation have to do with Java, math, or physics,
murphy?

What does your URL have to do with Java, math, or physics, murphy?

   "I had 'volunteered (years back) to support those who do endeavor
    to provide free Free Usenet access, support those who offered
    subscription based Free Usenet access, nothing more than
    cooperation expected in return for what has been many
    thousands of hours of work. I note most of those I joined with
    are either deceased, severely disabled, or plain ole' MIA..
    now it is my Time. ...

    You just read my last. ...

    For those who think they see me in future times I can only wish
    you severe Tinnitus in your dreams. For those who know me
    well (eMail, whatever) and see me, know I will be smiling also.
    It is to you I say "adieu mein frenz and adios .. grazie' [hugs]
    for all the Good Times! May you and yours always bear well
    with all Life brings you".

    /0ut"
      --murphy

http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/goodbye.htm

And people wonder why I call them Famous Last Words.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9375

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.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#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...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9380

On 11/2/2011 10:04 AM, BGB wrote:
>for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
> which adds ifdef's...


I rest my case. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9387

On 11/2/2011 10:19 AM, markspace wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 10:04 AM, BGB wrote:
>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>> which adds ifdef's...
>
>
> I rest my case. :-)
>

but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...

also, C# has ifdef, so it probably isn't all bad.


granted, it may reflect a different development philosophy:
what motivates people to choose, say, Java, or C#, or C++, or C, or ... 
may in turn be driven by different sets of views and development goals.


so, Java tries to gain portability via homogeneity.
so, the same code works everywhere, because everywhere is the same.

C and C++ via being flexible towards heterogeneity.
each place is different, but things like typedefs/ifdefs/... can help 
gloss over most of the differences.

granted, it would be nice to have a consistent platform, such that one 
doesn't really need piles of ifdef's everywhere, but this is not the 
fault of the existence of ifdef's proper.


in a completely homogenous environment, most likely people would simply 
not need them. however, if one doesn't have them, but are faced with a 
heterogeneous platform (say, standard JVM vs Android), then one has a 
mess...

granted, apparently (from stuff encountered elsewhere online) some 
people have been dealing with some of these issues by feeding Java code 
through the C preprocessor (presumably just prior to feeding it to 
javac), but I don't know how widespread this sort of practice is.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9410

BGB wrote:
> markspace wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>
>> I rest my case. :-)
>>
> 
> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...

Only useful for a non-portable language.

This does not establish that it would be useful for Java.

> also, C# has ifdef, so it probably isn't all bad.

Lame reasoning.

How does presence in C# argue for or against the quality of a feature compared to its presence in Java?  It would be equally valid to argue that "ifdef" is bad because Java omits it.

Do try to avoid invalid reasoning, hm?
 
> granted, it may reflect a different development philosophy:

Again, not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.

> what motivates people to choose, say, Java, or C#, or C++, or C, or ... 
> may in turn be driven by different sets of views and development goals.

Still not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.

> so, Java tries to gain portability via homogeneity.
> so, the same code works everywhere, because everywhere is the same.

And this is bad because ... ?

> C and C++ via being flexible towards heterogeneity.

Which "flexibility" causes infamous difficulties.

> each place is different, but things like typedefs/ifdefs/... can help 
> gloss over most of the differences.

For certain values of "help".  "#ifdef" also horribly complicates C and C++ code and horribly damages readability.  This is a good thing?

> granted, it would be nice to have a consistent platform, such that one 
> doesn't really need piles of ifdef's everywhere, but this is not the 
> fault of the existence of ifdef's proper.

You have it backwards.  "#ifdef" is a reaction to a fault, not a cause.

> in a completely homogenous environment, most likely people would simply 
> not need them. however, if one doesn't have them, but are faced with a 
> heterogeneous platform (say, standard JVM vs Android), then one has a 
> mess...

Since "standard JVM" doesn't run on Android, and Dalvik doesn't run elsewhere, I fail to see the problem.

J2ME is even less compatible with "standard JVM", whatever the heck that is.

> granted, apparently (from stuff encountered elsewhere online) some 
> people have been dealing with some of these issues by feeding Java code 
> through the C preprocessor (presumably just prior to feeding it to 
> javac), but I don't know how widespread this sort of practice is.

Hopefully not very.

> or such...

What is that "or such..." about, anyway?

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9420

On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
> BGB wrote:
>> markspace wrote:
>>> BGB wrote:
>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>
>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>
>>
>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>
> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>

C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they are 
useful for portable code.


> This does not establish that it would be useful for Java.
>

it would, however, allow it to be better used in contexts where trying 
to use it would have it fall on its face.

granted, probably in 95% of code one would not likely ever see it...


>> also, C# has ifdef, so it probably isn't all bad.
>
> Lame reasoning.
>
> How does presence in C# argue for or against the quality of a feature compared to its presence in Java?  It would be equally valid to argue that "ifdef" is bad because Java omits it.
>

it being present in C# indicates that MS thought it was a good idea to 
include it (much like pointers and goto...).

much less pain is felt from a never-used feature than from a 
needed-but-absent feature.

> Do try to avoid invalid reasoning, hm?
>
>> granted, it may reflect a different development philosophy:
>
> Again, not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.
>
>> what motivates people to choose, say, Java, or C#, or C++, or C, or ...
>> may in turn be driven by different sets of views and development goals.
>
> Still not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.
>

not every statement has to be an argument, but may instead serve to give 
relevant context.


>> so, Java tries to gain portability via homogeneity.
>> so, the same code works everywhere, because everywhere is the same.
>
> And this is bad because ... ?
>

it is not "bad", rather it is what they were doing.
it is a particular strategy, but not the only strategy, nor necessarily 
the optimal strategy.


>> C and C++ via being flexible towards heterogeneity.
>
> Which "flexibility" causes infamous difficulties.
>

but, it does work in the case where systems can't agree on such little 
details as how to allocate memory, create threads, access network 
sockets, ...

the point is that they still work, rather than running head first into a 
wall which is like "nope, can't do this" (apart maybe from even more 
nasty hacks, such as jerking off with the classloader).


>> each place is different, but things like typedefs/ifdefs/... can help
>> gloss over most of the differences.
>
> For certain values of "help".  "#ifdef" also horribly complicates C and C++ code and horribly damages readability.  This is a good thing?
>

it makes it work on more targets, which is generally considered a good 
thing.

granted, well organized code will tend to limit the overuse of ifdefs, 
generally limiting its use to regions of code meant to glue between the 
application logic and target-specific features.


>> granted, it would be nice to have a consistent platform, such that one
>> doesn't really need piles of ifdef's everywhere, but this is not the
>> fault of the existence of ifdef's proper.
>
> You have it backwards.  "#ifdef" is a reaction to a fault, not a cause.
>

if one had everything perfect, granted one wouldn't likely need ifdef, 
however Java isn't necessarily perfect, and there are cases where such a 
feature (among others) would be useful.

ideally, it would remain as a reasonably rarely-used feature, however.


granted, I don't believe it should be exactly the same as in C, since 
with C's semantics it would conflict with the goal of WORA (by making 
compiled classes only work on targets with the intended feature-set).

so, the goal would be that it would be left to the JVM proper, which 
would itself evaluate whether or not a given feature is present (after 
loading the JAR and feeding any such classes into the classloader).


in the class files, this could likely take the form of special 
attributes or similar (these attached to methods or variables, telling 
the VM whether to include or omit them).

in my own VM, I had ended up implementing ifdef and ifndef partly via 
special conditional-call instructions (the contents of the conditional 
block were folded into their own method body, similar to a 
closure/lambda, and if the requisite condition was false, then the VM 
would pretend both the block and the special call instruction did not 
exist).


>> in a completely homogenous environment, most likely people would simply
>> not need them. however, if one doesn't have them, but are faced with a
>> heterogeneous platform (say, standard JVM vs Android), then one has a
>> mess...
>
> Since "standard JVM" doesn't run on Android, and Dalvik doesn't run elsewhere, I fail to see the problem.
>

one may want to write the same app with the same code (say, for PC and 
Android), and have it run in both cases.

one is otherwise left with:
writing different app code, possibly having annoying synchronization issues;
having to use a preprocessor (such as the C preprocessor) to produce the 
desired version in each case;
...


> J2ME is even less compatible with "standard JVM", whatever the heck that is.
>

"standard JVM" would basically mean:
Java SE or similar;
the VM runs JAR's and class files;
...

this is to contrast against a "nonstandard JVM", which would include, say:
Dalvik;
compiling to native code;
J++ and J#;
...


>> granted, apparently (from stuff encountered elsewhere online) some
>> people have been dealing with some of these issues by feeding Java code
>> through the C preprocessor (presumably just prior to feeding it to
>> javac), but I don't know how widespread this sort of practice is.
>
> Hopefully not very.
>

given people have made reference to doing this (encountered when 
searching for other things online), it would seem that at least some 
people are doing this.


granted, this is kind of a lame option, because any apps produced this 
way would no longer exhibit the WORA goal...

granted, code with a lot of ifdefs could potentially run into targets 
with an incompatible featureset, and then fail to work correctly. if 
done well, this should be fairly rare.


>> or such...
>
> What is that "or such..." about, anyway?
>

personal habit...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9486

On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> markspace wrote:
>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>>
>>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>>
>> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>>
>
> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they are
> useful for portable code.

There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.

But portability for Java and portability for those does not
mean the same thing.

Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
run it as is.

C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
the target platform.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9798

On 11/3/2011 5:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> BGB wrote:
>>>> markspace wrote:
>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>>>
>>>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>>>
>>> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>>>
>>
>> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they are
>> useful for portable code.
>
> There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.
>
> But portability for Java and portability for those does not
> mean the same thing.
>
> Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
> run it as is.
>
> C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
> add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
> the target platform.
>

yep, this is an advantage of a bytecoded program representation vs a 
traditional precompiled binary.

my case is sort of a hybrid:
generic HLL code should presumably be (reasonably) portable;
but, the program may still use ifdefs for OS-specific stuff (and may or 
may not be limited to targets with a compatible combination of ifdefs).

however, for the most part HLL code will likely depend some on the 
underlying app, so will generally only be as portable as the underlying 
app. Java, OTOH, is designed mostly for creating standalone apps (so, 
its portability is mostly bound by library and run-time features...).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9810

On 11/9/2011 11:25 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 5:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>> markspace wrote:
>>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>>>>
>>>> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>>>>
>>>
>>> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they are
>>> useful for portable code.
>>
>> There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.
>>
>> But portability for Java and portability for those does not
>> mean the same thing.
>>
>> Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
>> run it as is.
>>
>> C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
>> add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
>> the target platform.
>>
>
> yep, this is an advantage of a bytecoded program representation vs a
> traditional precompiled binary.
>
> my case is sort of a hybrid:
> generic HLL code should presumably be (reasonably) portable;
> but, the program may still use ifdefs for OS-specific stuff (and may or
> may not be limited to targets with a compatible combination of ifdefs).
>
> however, for the most part HLL code will likely depend some on the
> underlying app, so will generally only be as portable as the underlying
> app. Java, OTOH, is designed mostly for creating standalone apps (so,
> its portability is mostly bound by library and run-time features...).

But almost all widely used Java libraries are  pure Java and
therefore portable as well.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9819

On 11/9/2011 6:25 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/9/2011 11:25 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 5:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>> markspace wrote:
>>>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>>>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they
>>>> are
>>>> useful for portable code.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.
>>>
>>> But portability for Java and portability for those does not
>>> mean the same thing.
>>>
>>> Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
>>> run it as is.
>>>
>>> C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
>>> add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
>>> the target platform.
>>>
>>
>> yep, this is an advantage of a bytecoded program representation vs a
>> traditional precompiled binary.
>>
>> my case is sort of a hybrid:
>> generic HLL code should presumably be (reasonably) portable;
>> but, the program may still use ifdefs for OS-specific stuff (and may or
>> may not be limited to targets with a compatible combination of ifdefs).
>>
>> however, for the most part HLL code will likely depend some on the
>> underlying app, so will generally only be as portable as the underlying
>> app. Java, OTOH, is designed mostly for creating standalone apps (so,
>> its portability is mostly bound by library and run-time features...).
>
> But almost all widely used Java libraries are pure Java and
> therefore portable as well.
>

except:
this doesn't work as well if one wants to use Java as a scripting 
language for an app written primarily in C and C++ (say, using Java like 
it were Lua or Python or similar...).

then, one doesn't care as much what sort of libraries Java provides, but 
rather how readily it can access facilities provided by the host app.

if the host-app is large (say, multi-Mloc or so), then porting it to 
Java may be a non-option (nor necessarily a good tradeoff).


FWIW, an elaborate ECMAScript variant does a better job here...

there is at least no assumption that people will want to rewrite their 
entire app in ECMAScript.

nevermind ECMAScript has its own issues, but at least with ones' own 
implementation, they can work around any technical issues however they 
see fit (vs, say, having to live with the relative "tyranny" of the 
SpiderMonkey developers/maintainers or similar...).


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9386

On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>
>> 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?

First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating
a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about
using Java not creating a Java.

Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
(adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
months of legal bills!).

Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
suit and it is like that after.

> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
> particularly "owned" by anyone.

Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
lawyers will come after you!

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9390

On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating
> a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about
> using Java not creating a Java.
>

it still reflects badly on Java as a whole.

granted, this issue wouldn't likely matter so much to end developers, 
except maybe as a "matter of principle" or similar (say, not to depend 
on products which are purely proprietary or are encumbered by patents or 
similar...).


> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
> months of legal bills!).
>

true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.

in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however 
they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant 
implementations thereof.


> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
> suit and it is like that after.
>

yes, this is the case.

however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a 
free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this 
isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to 
illustrate this issue.


>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>
> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
> lawyers will come after you!
>

but, this is not what Google was doing...

Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style 
license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to 
try to argue about infringing copyrights.

Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead 
(debatably) violated patents.


GCC then is simply a popular C compiler, but by no means the only C 
compiler, nor do they hold any particular ownership over the C language 
(actually, some have argued that GCC doesn't actually implement C, due 
to its many extensions and minor areas of non-conformance with the C 
standards).


one can implement their own C compiler though (say, from the ground up), 
add whatever the hell extensions they want to the language, and maybe 
leave out whatever features, and no one will come after them with a lawsuit.

for example, no one is getting on MS's case for, after 12 or so years, 
still not having C99 fully or correctly implemented (nevermind whether 
or not this is an annoyance to developers).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9394

On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating
>> a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about
>> using Java not creating a Java.
>>
>
> it still reflects badly on Java as a whole.
>
> granted, this issue wouldn't likely matter so much to end developers,
> except maybe as a "matter of principle" or similar (say, not to depend
> on products which are purely proprietary or are encumbered by patents or
> similar...).

I think the only thing you can conclude from that is that Google
has a better PR department than Oracle.

Almost all developers want copyright enforced and a good chunk
of them are for patents as well.

>> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
>> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
>> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
>> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
>> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
>> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
>> months of legal bills!).
>>
>
> true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.
>
> in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however
> they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant
> implementations thereof.

Sure.

And you can do that for Java.

There are just two caveats:
- you can not call it Java
- you are not covered by the patent license/promise
   to compliant implementations

>> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
>> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
>> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
>> suit and it is like that after.
>
> yes, this is the case.
>
> however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a
> free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this
> isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to
> illustrate this issue.

It is exactly like C or C++.

If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement
when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong.

Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open
source or closed source does not matter.

>>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>>
>> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
>> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
>> lawyers will come after you!
>>
>
> but, this is not what Google was doing...
>
> Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style
> license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to
> try to argue about infringing copyrights.
>
> Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead
> (debatably) violated patents.

????

Oracle are suing Google for both copyright and patent infringements.

> GCC then is simply a popular C compiler, but by no means the only C
> compiler, nor do they hold any particular ownership over the C language
> (actually, some have argued that GCC doesn't actually implement C, due
> to its many extensions and minor areas of non-conformance with the C
> standards).
>
>
> one can implement their own C compiler though (say, from the ground up),
> add whatever the hell extensions they want to the language, and maybe
> leave out whatever features, and no one will come after them with a
> lawsuit.

Same with Java.

Just don't call it Java unless it is 100% Java. The C equivalent
of this is not to call it C99 compliant unless you are.

And don't violate copyrights and patents - as for any other software.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9395

On 11/2/2011 6:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>>>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating
>>> a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about
>>> using Java not creating a Java.
>>>
>>
>> it still reflects badly on Java as a whole.
>>
>> granted, this issue wouldn't likely matter so much to end developers,
>> except maybe as a "matter of principle" or similar (say, not to depend
>> on products which are purely proprietary or are encumbered by patents or
>> similar...).
>
> I think the only thing you can conclude from that is that Google
> has a better PR department than Oracle.
>
> Almost all developers want copyright enforced and a good chunk
> of them are for patents as well.
>
>>> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
>>> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
>>> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
>>> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
>>> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
>>> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
>>> months of legal bills!).
>>>
>>
>> true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.
>>
>> in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however
>> they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant
>> implementations thereof.
>
> Sure.
>
> And you can do that for Java.
>
> There are just two caveats:
> - you can not call it Java
> - you are not covered by the patent license/promise
> to compliant implementations
>
>>> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
>>> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
>>> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
>>> suit and it is like that after.
>>
>> yes, this is the case.
>>
>> however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a
>> free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this
>> isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to
>> illustrate this issue.
>
> It is exactly like C or C++.
>
> If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement
> when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong.
>
> Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open
> source or closed source does not matter.
>
>>>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>>>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>>>
>>> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
>>> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
>>> lawyers will come after you!
>>>
>>
>> but, this is not what Google was doing...
>>
>> Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style
>> license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to
>> try to argue about infringing copyrights.
>>
>> Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead
>> (debatably) violated patents.
>
> ????
>
> Oracle are suing Google for both copyright and patent infringements.
>
>> GCC then is simply a popular C compiler, but by no means the only C
>> compiler, nor do they hold any particular ownership over the C language
>> (actually, some have argued that GCC doesn't actually implement C, due
>> to its many extensions and minor areas of non-conformance with the C
>> standards).
>>
>>
>> one can implement their own C compiler though (say, from the ground up),
>> add whatever the hell extensions they want to the language, and maybe
>> leave out whatever features, and no one will come after them with a
>> lawsuit.
>
> Same with Java.
>
> Just don't call it Java unless it is 100% Java. The C equivalent
> of this is not to call it C99 compliant unless you are.
>
> And don't violate copyrights and patents - as for any other software.

Neither SUN nor Oracle has to my best knowledge ever taken any
legal steps against GCJ.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9424

On 11/2/2011 3:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>>>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating
>>> a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about
>>> using Java not creating a Java.
>>>
>>
>> it still reflects badly on Java as a whole.
>>
>> granted, this issue wouldn't likely matter so much to end developers,
>> except maybe as a "matter of principle" or similar (say, not to depend
>> on products which are purely proprietary or are encumbered by patents or
>> similar...).
>
> I think the only thing you can conclude from that is that Google
> has a better PR department than Oracle.
>
> Almost all developers want copyright enforced and a good chunk
> of them are for patents as well.
>

I agree with copyright, but not with software patents. software patents 
create far too much room for commercial abuse, meanwhile being largely 
outside the reach of "the common man" (granted, if every "Joe Blow" was 
patenting whatever he could think up, this would be a much bigger mess...).

a much better solution would be likely to limit patents to actual 
hardware devices, and to only those components which exist in hardware.

otherwise, IMHO the only real valid reason to get software patents is 
otherwise to "protect" oneself or others from other people trying to get 
a patent over the same technology and then suing over it.


>>> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
>>> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
>>> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
>>> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
>>> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
>>> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
>>> months of legal bills!).
>>>
>>
>> true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.
>>
>> in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however
>> they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant
>> implementations thereof.
>
> Sure.
>
> And you can do that for Java.
>
> There are just two caveats:
> - you can not call it Java
> - you are not covered by the patent license/promise
> to compliant implementations
>

fair enough, but this does mean that it is, effectively, not a free or 
open technology.


>>> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
>>> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
>>> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
>>> suit and it is like that after.
>>
>> yes, this is the case.
>>
>> however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a
>> free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this
>> isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to
>> illustrate this issue.
>
> It is exactly like C or C++.
>
> If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement
> when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong.
>
> Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open
> source or closed source does not matter.
>

except that C and C++ are free and open, as per these definitions.

except:
if one doesn't use anyone's source, copyright doesn't apply;
there are no known patents which apply directly to the languages;
no one has the names trademarked;
...

similarly, any related patents have to be either non-existent free use 
for everyone for it to be suitable for ISO's standardization rules 
(hence why there can't currently be ISO Java or ISO C#, as for either 
case, the owning companies would have to give up claim on any of their 
relevant patents. however both C and C++ are ISO standards...).

there is ECMA C#, but this is less safe, and only a small subset of the 
language is covered (if one writes a more "complete" implementation, and 
re-implements MS's APIs, they may once again be under patent land, which 
was sort of a big issue with Mono and similar).


say, one can potentially get, say, the FSF pissed off if they use 
GCC-derived source code in ways not compatible with the GPL.

however, if one writes the compiler from the ground up based on the 
standards, the FSF would have no claim.

likewise, the FSF has no claim over LLVM/CLang, or LCC, or MSVC, or 
TinyC, or...


there is, effectively, no central authority who solidly owns much of 
anything WRT these languages (and, by extension, no one with much claim 
for a lawsuit regarded to use of these languages).


>>>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>>>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>>>
>>> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
>>> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
>>> lawyers will come after you!
>>>
>>
>> but, this is not what Google was doing...
>>
>> Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style
>> license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to
>> try to argue about infringing copyrights.
>>
>> Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead
>> (debatably) violated patents.
>
> ????
>
> Oracle are suing Google for both copyright and patent infringements.
>

AFAIK it was patent.

the copyright claim was invalid due to Android/Dalvik not using any of 
Oracles' source-code, and instead having been based on the Apache 
Harmony project.

however, arguably some of the patents did apply, since patents are 
subject to "spooky action at a distance", and don't require any direct 
use of code or technology.


>> GCC then is simply a popular C compiler, but by no means the only C
>> compiler, nor do they hold any particular ownership over the C language
>> (actually, some have argued that GCC doesn't actually implement C, due
>> to its many extensions and minor areas of non-conformance with the C
>> standards).
>>
>>
>> one can implement their own C compiler though (say, from the ground up),
>> add whatever the hell extensions they want to the language, and maybe
>> leave out whatever features, and no one will come after them with a
>> lawsuit.
>
> Same with Java.
>
> Just don't call it Java unless it is 100% Java. The C equivalent
> of this is not to call it C99 compliant unless you are.
>

one could call it C99 compliant without much threat of lawsuit, although 
they would likely get some amount of hate-mail and dirty stares from 
people who know better (granted, it has been alleged that there are no 
entirely conformant C99 implementations in existence, and C1X has made 
optional some of the C99 features which few people bothered to implement).

the issue partly is that the ISO committee in both cases has started to 
see themselves as the authority, and has added features to both C99 and 
C1X which lack much precedent in real implementations, causing them to 
not be entirely well received (by either compiler implementers or 
developers).


but, anyways, C compilers can get by with a K&R or C90 style variant, 
and still call it C. granted, the assumption of homogeneity is much 
lower with C, and many implementation requirements much more lax.


luckily, despite my efforts taking a few ideas from the JVM 
architecture, my language (BGBScript) is decidedly different from Java 
(and is anyways more closely related to ECMAScript and ActionScript), 
and there is little chance of people confusing them.


> And don't violate copyrights and patents - as for any other software.
>

yep, however one can write a compiler without there being much risk of 
lawsuits "just because"...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9491

On 11/3/2011 1:30 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 3:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
>>>> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
>>>> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
>>>> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
>>>> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
>>>> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
>>>> months of legal bills!).
>>>>
>>>
>>> true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.
>>>
>>> in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however
>>> they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant
>>> implementations thereof.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> And you can do that for Java.
>>
>> There are just two caveats:
>> - you can not call it Java
>> - you are not covered by the patent license/promise
>> to compliant implementations
>>
>
> fair enough, but this does mean that it is, effectively, not a free or
> open technology.

Hm.

Oracle does not allow usage of the Java trademark and they have not
given away all relevant patents to everybody.

My guess is that if you try and call a compiler for ISO C++ or ANSI C++
while it is not, then you are going to gt problems.

And I am also getting that companies producing C++ compilers has
not given away rights to all patents that could be useful for
C++ compilers.

>>>> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
>>>> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
>>>> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
>>>> suit and it is like that after.
>>>
>>> yes, this is the case.
>>>
>>> however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a
>>> free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this
>>> isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to
>>> illustrate this issue.
>>
>> It is exactly like C or C++.
>>
>> If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement
>> when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong.
>>
>> Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open
>> source or closed source does not matter.
>>
>
> except that C and C++ are free and open, as per these definitions.
>
> except:
> if one doesn't use anyone's source, copyright doesn't apply;
> there are no known patents which apply directly to the languages;
> no one has the names trademarked;
> ...
>
> similarly, any related patents have to be either non-existent free use
> for everyone for it to be suitable for ISO's standardization rules
> (hence why there can't currently be ISO Java or ISO C#, as for either
> case, the owning companies would have to give up claim on any of their
> relevant patents. however both C and C++ are ISO standards...).

Nice theory.

But what language do you think ISO 23270 describes?

> there is ECMA C#, but this is less safe, and only a small subset of the
> language is covered (if one writes a more "complete" implementation, and
> re-implements MS's APIs, they may once again be under patent land, which
> was sort of a big issue with Mono and similar).

No.

The ECMA (and ISO) standard for C# is the complete language that MS
and Mono has implemented (like MS C# 2.0 matches ECMA 334 4th edition).

> say, one can potentially get, say, the FSF pissed off if they use
> GCC-derived source code in ways not compatible with the GPL.
>
> however, if one writes the compiler from the ground up based on the
> standards, the FSF would have no claim.

And Oracle has not sued those that has implemented Java from the
ground up.

That is how copyright work for all software.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9493

On 11/3/2011 1:30 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 3:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>>>>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try
>>>> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF
>>>> lawyers will come after you!
>>>>
>>>
>>> but, this is not what Google was doing...
>>>
>>> Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style
>>> license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to
>>> try to argue about infringing copyrights.
>>>
>>> Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead
>>> (debatably) violated patents.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> Oracle are suing Google for both copyright and patent infringements.
>>
>
> AFAIK it was patent.

Anyone that can read English can see that it is patent *and* copyright.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40316067/oraclegoog102710complaint

> the copyright claim was invalid due to Android/Dalvik not using any of
> Oracles' source-code, and instead having been based on the Apache
> Harmony project.

The judge has not ruled yet, so I don't know why you consider
it invalid.

Furthermore Apache denies that the relevant code came from them.

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/read_beyond_the_headers

(link down right now but there are several references to it on the net)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9361

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:29:31 -0500, jebblue <n@n.nnn> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :

>With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>and on the other cooing about how many phones
>run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>and consider going back to .Net.

That does not make sense.  The explosion in Java on cell-phones means
a greater interest in Java generally, a greater demand for Java
skills, and more places to exploit your own entrepreneurial Java
tendencies.

But then you posted for trollish motivations, no?
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
It's difficult to be rigorous about whether a machine really knows,
thinks, etc., because we’re hard put to define these things. 
We understand human mental processes only slightly better than
a fish understands swimming. 
~ John McCarthy (born: 1927-09-04 died: 2011-10-23 at age: 84).
Inventor of the term AI (Artificial Intelligence), 
the short-circuit OR operator (|| in Java), 
and LISP (LIst Processing Language) that makes EMACS 
(Extensible MACro System) so addictive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web