"MS Killed Java" (on the Client) JL Founder 672
jgeelan writes "In a commentary titled "Microsoft Killed Java" the founder of JavaLobby, Rick Ross, revisits the 'death' of Java on the client.
"Five years ago, almost to the day," Ross declares, "Microsoft shipped IE4 with a JVM that was intentionally engineered to provide leverage to corrupt and pollute Java compatibility standards."
According to an Associated Press report, Microsoft Corp has until only October 4 to respond to Sun Microsystems' request for a federal court injunction requiring Microsoft to integrate Java into Windows."
I made a new language (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I made a new language (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I made a new language (Score:2)
Re:I made a new language (Score:2, Redundant)
I don't want 100% pure Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Java is not that great that it is not capable of improvement. Sun crippled Java so that it would only work within the area that suited their business objective. Microsoft removed the restriction. Sun then tried to force Microsoft to observe their restrictions by introducing stricter conformance criteria in their next release, Microsoft declined to upgrade.
The initial article is not only insulting by comparing Microsoft's actions to murder, it is also wrong as a matter of fact. The Java case was settled out of court. The anti-trust case did not consider Microsoft extensions to Java.
The only reason why Java was taken out of the browser was the legal action by Sun. If that killed java then sun killed java.
Furthermore the people who claim that C# is unnecessary because we already have java should not also complain that Microsoft tried to modify Java. What Microsoft has made clear they want is an object oriented language that is similar to C, simpler than C++ and open to development. Sun has made it abundantly clear that Java does not meet the third criteria. Therfore Java does not meet the criteria defined by Microsoft, do not complain if they propose something else.
Java was not a novel language. The only novel thought at the time was the idea that anything might displace C++ from the position it had established.
Re:I don't want 100% pure Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't want 100% pure Java (Score:2)
The reason English is the new lingua franca has nothing to do with the Acadmie Franaise. It's all about American cultural exports. As for the Acadmie's control of the French language, apparently you've never heard French kids using all the English words for stuff in video games, and things of that nature. Le Walkman etc.
Re:I made a new language (Score:2)
For a better answer, read the judges findings of fact from the case.
Google is your friend.
Re:I made a new language (Score:2)
The best "punishment" is to make them support it. Think of it as a kind of community service to the IT industry.
Re:I made a new language (Score:2, Funny)
Missed the point (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be the equivalent of Microsoft giving away a Linux distribution "MS Linux" that crashes often, doesn't run most of the GNU programs (gcc included), has a different set of C libraries with their own quirks, and uses a really old version of Gnome as a fixed, non-configurable GUI.
Then everyone would say "I tried Linux, it came with Windows, but it sucks" and it would take a lengthy, unwanted explanation to let them know that their "free Linux" was crippled. Even then most will never try it again.
It's not clear that MS killed Java on the client. In my opinion, Java was not ready for the client and therefore it killed itself with the Applet hype.
But that doesn't mean shooting a man dying of cancer is not a crime.
Re:Missed the point (Score:2)
Most things work just fine w/Windows and that's how MS makes it.
People will always follow the leader.
Java the language vs. Java the religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, the notion that middleware is going to magically let you write an app once and run anywhere, results in apps that can only support a lowest-common-denominator of the APIs available on the various platforms. Sure Sun hyped it to the moon, no surprise there, but that doesn't mean it was going to happen. Middleware has *always* had this problem and always will. What happens when Windows comes out with some new feature (USB support say) and then Java doesn't get around to supporting it for a year....all the Java coders are supposed to simply wait a year while native Windows apps use the feature right away? Yeah surrrrre.
- adam
Re:Missed the point (Score:3, Interesting)
That's quite true. By that description, one might wonder if Lindows is secretly a Microsoft plot to discredit Linux from the inside?
Go ahead and mod this as 'Funny' if you want, but think about it: no, I'm not suggesting that it's actually true, but one thing that the Lindows people seem to be really good at is establishing relationships with OEM's and generally getting the product out there. They seem to be doing better at communicating with the preload universe than any other Linux distributor seems to have been able to do so far.
One thing they don't do well, unfortunately, is build a good version of Linux. That means that a lot of people are going to be seeing Linux for the first time in the form of Lindows. They're going to see a crappy version of Linux, complete with a $99 service that lets them spend hours on a modem downloading packages that everyone else supplies for free on the CD, and they're going to think: "Damn, this sucks. I'm going back to Windows."
As the cliche goes -- you never have a second chance to make a first impression. Look at how MS used this to their advantage to turn people off to Java. Lindows may inadvertently do the same to turn people off to Linux.
Re:Missed the point (Score:2)
Perhaps if Java was as great as Sun believes then a lack of Java in IE would have kept Netscape in the black. Windows XP comes with CD Burning software but Roxio and Ahead stay in business, it comes with a firewall but I wouldn't swear off of ZoneAlarm. Hell, most people can take any browser other than the one they use and find one tiny little thing that keeps them from switching - maybe Java would have kept people off of IE.
Re:Missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
MS Java was, and is (because it's still out there and it's still a pain) NON-COMPLIANT, which means quirky, of unpredictable behavior, not-following the standard imposed by the brand which they licensed.
If I code an Applet using standard Java and it runs on every JVM except MS, MS Java is crippled. And that's the situation that prompted Sun's conflict with MS.
Ask any Java developer out there that has had to deploy Java Applets on the Internet, where you cannot force your users to download a standard (or non-standard) JRE unless you're willing to lose demographics. They have to target their Applets to either standard JVMs or MS JVMs, or spent code and debugging time testing both as if they were different platforms... because they are.
If your JVM cannot run my standard Java code unless I target it specifically, the JVM is crippled. If the code I target specifically on your JVM doesn't run exactly alike in other standard JVMs, your JVM is crippled (it requires non-portable non-cross-platform code).
Now, MS Java may have been faster (certain parts were), and may have been a nice language/VM set by itself. But it was not portable, not cross-platform, and it was not compliant with the Java specs. Which means it broke Java applications and MS legal obligations according to the license.
Re:I made a new language (Score:3, Funny)
The name won't bother them. They will just rename their version "Mojo".
Re:I made a new language (Score:2)
As Nelson would say, "Ha ha!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Hilarious. Losers like Rick Ross would stamp their feet and pout whenever anybody with a clue would point out that Java is dead on the client. Glad he's finally come to grips with the truth, even if it is a pretty transparent ploy.
But really now, Rick. What killed Java on the client is the lack of any apps that people are interested in using. Microsoft probably helped Java out by making a kickass JVM back in the day, but even its nice speed couldn't help Java's slowness and memory consumption. Did Microsoft keep anybody from coming out with a Java office suite that people have talked about for the last 6 years? Nope. Is there a Java email client or web browser that anybody wants to use? No. Multimedia player? No. Sorry Rick, the reason why Java is dead on the client is because it doesn't do anything that many people want.
Re:I made a new language (Score:2)
Oh God, I hope no one comes up with a new language: Goatse
slashdotted already? (Score:2)
Re:slashdotted already? (Score:2)
I did a search on Google and came up with a Concept post [halfbakery.com] involving pants with built in toasters. Is this what your breakfast pants are based on?
Re:slashdotted already? (Score:2)
You think they'd know better than to try and run a high-traffic news site on an Access database...especially since high-quality, industrial-strength databases are freely available.
Get the facts straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get the facts straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention Sun childishly refusing to submit Java to standards bodies so they could maintain full control of the language. Here's a hint, Sun: it's either proprietary, or it's a standard. Pick one.
The whole MS/Sun Java fight is little more than two children fighting over a toy and smashing the toy in the process. This works out okay for MS, cuz they have a lot more toys in their box than Sun does. They'll just go play with .net for awhile while Sun sobs and whines in a corner.
Sun & MS tag team poor Java (Score:3, Insightful)
MS stated that they were not going to lose control of their own platform by allowing cross-platform Java to become the best way to create Windows apps.
Sun, at the same time, was saying that they were trying to make Windows obsolete, so the last thing they wanted was to let Java become "just a better way to write Windows apps".
The only thing they both seem to have agreed on was that they didn't want Java to be too good at creating Win32 apps. So Sun stood on Java's tail while MS beat it senseless, and they both got their wish.
Re:Get the facts straight.... (Score:2)
No offense to the deceased, who are already dead and won't be reading this so I don't know why I bother with the disclaimer:
Human beings are cheap and plentiful. Especially the brown ones. Java, on the other hand, is worth more than most people.
To give you an example, the FAA has this formula when they want to decide if a defect on a plane has to be fixed. They figure out the chances that the defect will cause a crash, and how likely it is that people will die from this defect. Each death has a cost of around three million dollars. They run the numbers, and if it would cost too much vs. the risk for all the airlines to, say, keep the center fuel tanks from exploding, then the advisory doesn't go out.
Or, as Stalin said: One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.
Get over it, people have a quantifiable cash value, and few people are worth as much as what java was trying to offer.
Personally, I tend to agree that something is fucked up in the world. Unfortunately, moral outrage doesn't speak as loudly as cold, hard cash. Everyone has their price.
Java died because nobody cares (Score:2, Troll)
MS didn't kill java, they just didn't keep it on life support.
Re:Java died because nobody cares (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the incompatibilities were in MS JVM, which was pre-installed in Windows.
This is on the user-side, and a user is as likely to notice the source of the problem, download and install a new JVM, as he/she is likely to download and install a new set of shared libraries.
Java applets killed themselves (Score:2)
Flash filled the nich better without (yet) getting killed by MS. That shows that if you know your market and do it (reasonably) well, you can survive.
Don't blame everything on MS.
Flash survived MS, Sun is whining (Score:2)
Why should they even include ANYTHING from Sun in the first place?
People upgrade Flash for reasons seemingly outside of MS's control. (sometimes because it nags users for a later version.)
Flash survived MS (so far), Applets didn't. MS is beatable. That sounds like evidence enough.
No Killer Apps didn't help it (Score:2)
Maybe if Sun had spent time on a killer application or applet (or evangelizing for same), the Windows users of the world (and the rest of us as well) would be saying "Hey, keep the Java in there!"
Instead, Sun has the bloated Swing with some cute little demos. The world has created java game applets, animated signs, weird ui elements, and memory-hogging eye candy.
Why do I need Java in my web browser client or on my desktop?
Yep, Microsoft is to blame.
Java Died? (Score:5, Funny)
When will it end?
(sarcasm skills required for reading this comment)
Dead Language (Score:2)
Re:Java Died? (Score:2)
B) Until recently a very significant portion of programming courses currently taught in Java were taught in Pascal. Java has been more popular in academic circles than C/C++ and Pascal, being as dead in its pure form as a language can be, was bound to be replaced by some OO language.
Java is not dead, but like Pascal, it could very well be dead in the Real World and still be the teaching language in a lot of programming courses.
Oh-so-unfair!!! (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Oh-so-unfair!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Tisk, Tisk... (Score:2)
And there you go. (Score:2)
Nah (Score:2)
Re:Oh-so-unfair!!! (Score:2)
-- PS. I'd stick more acronyms in here if I could think of them!
Re:Oh-so-unfair!!! (Score:2)
Actions that are sound business practices for normal businesses may well be illegal for those that have been found to be monopolies.
Just a reminder that Microsoft is a special case, in that sense.
Point: Kubrick (Score:2)
history (Score:2)
5 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sorry, but all this is not entirely M$'s fault -- the other "big" boys did nothing but enjoyed their short lived fame while M$ continued its assaults.
Re:5 years ago... (Score:2)
Computer Standards have advantages; cultural standards are vastly more important.
Scott McNealy is a big baby... (Score:2, Insightful)
its not dead (Score:2)
Dead ? (Score:2)
Microsoft's Java Claims (last I heard) (Score:2, Interesting)
But isn't the fact that they aren't allowed to touch it the strongest guranatee that it will be secure? Or at least it won't be "Microsoft Secure(TM)", a new concept of security whereby things are required to be treated as if they are secure until Microsoft is forced to admit that they aren't, but don't worry because nobody will figure out how to exploit the problem anyway. And the EULA doesn't allow you to discuss this or we take your firtsborn.
Chiapaint: Bricklin's hysterically funny parody (Score:3, Informative)
It will be interesting to see just how
Demo software like Bricklin's is usually used to present a positive view of technology that doesn't exist... this is the first time I've ever seen demo software used to present a negative view of technology that DOES exist.
Java has always sucked on the client side (Score:5, Insightful)
Java still sucks for GUI development today. I use it heavily for server-side development, and I've worked with plenty of Java UIs. The only acceptable Java UI system I've ever seen is IBM's SWT framework, as used in Eclipse. Swing UIs are borderline at best, and AWT isn't even worth discussing. In Sun's defense, creating a decent fully cross-platform UI (without depending on native widgets) is a tough problem. SWT's use of native widgets makes a whole lot more sense - Sun should take note.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that Microsoft did everything in its monopoly power to crush Java. Abandoning Visual J++ and then insulting their userbase with J# and "Jump to .NET" showed that when it comes to crushing the competition, even Microsoft's own customers better not get in the way.
Java/Swing is pretty good on the client side (Score:4, Insightful)
Swing was great to work with as it was VERY extensible. We had all sorts of custom comboboxes and tables and form entry fields. The app worked really well and the users loved it.
When people try to tell me Java or Swing is not good enough for user facing applications, I have to think they haven't really tried.
On the widgets, Sun DID try native widgets, that's what AWT is!!! To me SWT looks a lot like a spruced up AWT. I'll admit I've not seen Eclipse in action, and I still think the tools to develop Swing apps are not great (though I've evaluated very few of those for a while since I too am mostly into server side programming). All of our Swing work before was done by hand which is very easy to do when you have a good framework.
I Think its a plan of our MasterMind " BILL Gates" (Score:2)
Java on the client. (Score:2, Informative)
If there is a reason that java died on the client it is becuase still to this day, if you wish to make a program that is competive with a normal C/C++ client, it requires the same amount of work. There is no advantage to using Java, in fact many times you end up doing more work to get the same job done.
If you want speed, then you can't use Swing. Swing is nowhere near as responsive to the user as a AWT or even faster, a native API application. Though it is much faster to develop with then Win32 API. So unless you want your application to be percieved as 'slow' you have to do many tricks that are difficult and hack-like.
Java's strengths are that it's easier to use thanks to GC, an OO api (that is usually extendable) and a large standard API. Some weaknesses are bad memory model, API is too large and abstract (in some places) and lack of support for native extensions. No matter what you say, it sucks that you have to get out a C compiler anytime you want to interface with a part of the system that the Java API designers didn't design in. Another thing that I don't like is that I think that they should do a code audit and get rid of all depreciated methods.
Java has killed itself on the client, not anyone else. Applets were shoehorned into the community of non-developers. Programmers may have made the tools that make the web possiable, but they did not make the web what it is today. Flash is made for tech-artists, those people who don't really want to program, but can get enough done to get what they imagine on the screen. Java never filled that niche, it's a 'real' programming language that can display stuff in a browser.
I use Java every day, and I like it but I know its pitfalls all too well. Having to make up for them is what we Java developers do.
HTML killed Java (Score:5, Insightful)
Java on the client was mainly killed by plain old HTML and round-trip processing (CGI, ASP, forms, etc), which proved far superior for quickly and easily building decent, usable UIs, and which downloaded to and rendered on end-user machines much more quickly.
The really stupid thing is that Microsoft was probably Sun's best chance for keeping Java alive on the client. MS had the fastest JVM around for a LONG time, and they had the most bug-free JVM for a long time. (I wrote Java apps for a number of years and had to constantly test on about a dozen JVM/JITs, I even recall the first Sun Java event where Sun people were praising and recommending the Microsoft JVM.)
Microsoft probably could have killed Java, and it's reasonable to assume they thought about it -- although I personally disagree that J++ was an actual attempt to do so (it was a kick-ass environment, and I produced vast amounts of full-compatible code with it) -- but the simple fact is they didn't have to, because Java never really got going on the client. Java lives on in the server-side world as a kind of VB-for-people-who-hate-Microsoft, and that's about it, but MS didn't kill it.
Close...*D*HTML killed Java (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony of it is that these platforms are using JAVASCRIPT for their language yet are still fast enough in most cases. (Remember the complaints about Java being slow?) All the heavy lifting is done by the browser itself, and that's compiled code.
From a training and learning standpoint, it's a natural progression from HTML and CSS into programming with Javascript and DOM. That's not true for the move to Java.
Re:Close...*D*HTML killed Java (Score:2)
That is not my experience. The simplest things that work in one browser cause another to go wacko. Emphasize "lowest" in lowest-common-denominator.
What I think is really needed is an HTTP-friendly "remote GUI" protocol for writing client-side GUI's. Something like XWT or SCGUI. DOM+JS+HTML is not very natural at real GUI's IMO. They work great for e-brochures, but clunky for dynamic biz-centric GUI's.
Re:HTML killed Java (Score:2)
I am working on a multi-million-dollar project processing millions of transactions per month running on Solaris, integrating multiple trouble ticketing systems. It is written entirely in java. You have know idea what you are talking about.
Re:HTML killed Java (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sick and tired of "I wrote a big app in Foo, and therefor Foo is good for big apps".
Big apps have been successfully written in Assembler and COBOL. That does not mean such langs are better, it is just that anecdotes of such are nearly useless. (So are language fights for that matter, since people prefer langs that best model their own thinking and working style and die-hard Perl fans are not gonna convince die-hard Eiffle fans, and visa versa.)
Re:HTML killed Java (Score:2)
Yes, I worded that part very poorly. My point was that it has many of the same attractions that VB has -- easy to learn, easy to deploy, etc. No wild pointers bringing down the service... one of those languages where anybody can start cranking out code without knowing much about how stuff actually works. (I'm not saying that's a good thing.)
I agree that HTML has killed VB on the client, too, but that's not really relevant to the discussion. Indeed, there's probably a larger market for COBOL guys now than VB guys (a guess, but my company sure has a shortage).
clientside java != applets (Score:4, Insightful)
And Swing is still great when you need a quick, thin (logic-wise) UI that's doing something just out of reach of HTML's capabilities. (native widgets or not, speed and look are often just not important)
Java: not dead, but mentally handicapped. (Score:2)
And I don't think Java's dead. It's great for some uses, but not so great for others.
One of the places where Java is at a distinct disadvantage is in developing client-side applications. The AWT/Swing classes, as far as GUI development go, are laughable -- pitiful, even. There is no comparison between these and, say, Cocoa on Mac OS X. AWT/Swing are too inelegant, too clumsy, and quite frankly, their elements are butt-ugly when they finally get drawn on your screen.
As for performance: we've been able to get some very good performance out of our server-side apps with some careful programming and judicious use of JNI.
But yeah, if Java is experiencing problems, I'd say that MS is probably not to blame for most of those.
Sun killed Java on the client (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Flash and its success in comparison: Macromedia positioned it as harmless eye candy (so it didn't catch Microsoft's attention), didn't promise much of anything, had great graphics and animation support, and provided great authoring tools. Flash came in under the radar screen and didn't look like like a threat to Microsoft, and it picked a market and stuck to it (eye candy).
Sun could have succeeded with Java: they should have fixed severe technical problems with Java earlier and standardized it through a standards body. Sun should also have focussed on keeping Java small and on the client. Microsoft would likely have supported standard Java and added lots of proprietary libraries--just like what Apple is doing with Java, for example.
Today, Java is still a pretty decent programming environment with a very efficient runtime and capable libraries. I'd still recommend using it for many kinds of commercial applications. Java will likely continue to be a big deal for server side programming. For lightweight clients, Flash will continue to make inroads. For widespread adoption by the open source community, Java missed its window of opportunity for the most part--Sun's policies still don't make it a good platform.
But what Java is today is Sun's responsibility, not Microsoft's or anybody else. Companies like Macromedia and Adobe have shown that you can compete with Microsoft and that you can ship formats and software that cuts into Microsoft's markets. But if a company behaves as stupidly as Sun did, they will fail. And the fact that Sun has so thoroughly failed with their promises towards the open source community and has failed to keep Java suitable for its original purpose also means that I don't have that much sympathy for them.
HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
As unfashionable as it is on
Did M$ ship IE with a "corrupt" JVM, i'd sure bet they did.
SO WHAT?
Did they intend to kill the Java adoptions and standards momentum?
I'd bet they sure wanted to (and still do).
SO WHAT?
Just as we in the Open Source and FSF communities are free to get up in the evening and work on any project we want, deploy any OS we want, use any app we want and deploy any available technology we can...
so is M$, they are no more obligated to support java than pepsi is to support coca-cola, than lexus is to support mercedes, than toyota is to support nissan
M$ is responsible for its own karma. If the world wants Java and M$ doesn't support it they way the world wants, they will lose market share....
Microsoft (and any other company) is only resposible to their stockholders and customers, if that means killing off a competitive technology, that's the way the game is (and has always been) played. That's the system.
It was Sun's responsiblity to make Java an important, dominating technology, NOT Microsoft.
If you've REALLY followed the Java Saga, Sun has done as much (some would say more) to halt Java adoption/deployment as Microsoft.
If you're a customer, you vote with your wallet.
If you're a developer/technologist you vote with the systems you deploy/develop and recommend.
You want to "beat" Microsoft?
Do it with better software.
Re:HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"??? (Score:2)
Re:HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"??? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're missing the point. Microsoft, because of their desktop OS monopoly, was/is in a position to make or break anybody's desktop software. No matter how excellent Java (on the desktop) could have been, Microsoft could (and arguably did) keep it from becoming a success.
When the operating system you distribute gets put on 95% of the computers out there, if you don't want something to exist on it - it won't. Microsoft wasn't allowed to embrace-and-extend Java, so they dropped it completely. And since most computer users haven't the slightest idea about how to install it, Java on the desktop has died a pathetic, twitching death.
Re:HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but Microsoft included it's own JVM that was "broken" in an attempt to overtake Sun's implementation. Had they been permitted to do so, you wouldn't be deluged with
Re:HUH, what about "free" and "freedom"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I love my Opera browser, really love it. I would love to BEAT Microsoft with this better software. But guess what? I have to keep IE around, don't I? You know why. Because it's impossible to get around certain sites without it. I'm just where MS wants me to be.
The only thing I can do is NOT visit sites that aren't coded to standards --- sites such as my company's on-line 401k management site.
If only it were as simple as making the software choice you want. And the main reason it's not that simple is because Microsoft doesn't want you to have that choice. They take away MY options by mucking around with standards, and it makes me mad.
Sun vs. the GUI (Score:2)
After all, their head techie's career was based on "vi".
Java attacked from without and within (Score:2, Interesting)
As with many things from Sun that have had trouble flying, the sometimes serious external attacks on their technologies have allowed them to ignore the serious internal "attacks" (or at least misapplications/poor management). I don't need to describe the external attacks, since you're probably already a either hardened believer or non-believer in the illegality of what MS did. But consider this for a moment, did Sun's well intented handling of Java actually hinder it more? My reason for saying this is that they still hold to two separate cross-platform doctrines that should have been decoupled a long time ago:
Consider this: in the time Java has been available to the public, has there really been any serious development on a modern compiled language with one solid, standardized API across all-platforms? I can't think of any (or at least any that have caught on). Apple started down this road with Cocoa, but gave up on anything but their own platform.
In the end, two of the biggest losers due to that second doctrine has been Linux and the Mac. In order to get a vendor of an existing Windows app to produce a native Linux or Mac app, you have to convince them that it's worthwhile to branch off an almost complete re-write of their app to port it over. Imagine if there was a really usable language that they could code in, that wouldn't hinder their abilities and/or speed on Windows, but required little more than a cross-compile to target to Linux, Mac, Solaris, etc. We'd be up to our eyeballs in good apps on all platforms.
This reminds me of the Anti-Google guy (Score:2)
Seriously, MS made (while they were supporting it) one of the better implementations of a JVM out there. Sure, they had extensions on it to make it useful to more people, but you didn't have to use them! So Sun starts bitching about how it's not compliant. MS goes and takes their toys and goes home. WTF does Sun do? They sue MS to support it again.
This is all sour grapes. Sun's just ticked cause their stock is sitting at around 3+3/4.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if Sun had their way they would be doing exactly what MS is doing now? They are just a wanna-be monopolist.
The real culprit (Score:2)
Actually, the butler did it.
If Java must be included, what's next? (Score:3)
If you want it, download and install it.
Netscape fucked it up worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Did MS purposely taint the API: almost certainly, there was no reason for them to put their functions and code in the Java.* packages. Did it really matter: not as much as Netscape sticking with 1.0.
Microsoft might have made stuff worse over time, but who knows. But anyway, microsoft probably wanted to kill Java and in a way, they succeded.
Java: 2nd most popular language on the planet (Score:3, Informative)
but what if I don't want Java (Score:4, Insightful)
What killed java (client side)? Well people will argue to death that it was MS? But what killed ActiveX (client side)? Well people will argue to death that it was Java. What really happened.
There are two things I think happened. Java became "popular" because of things it claimed to do (some of which never materialized). Creating a rise in "amateur" programmers who's only creative outlet was applets on the web used for banners and menus etc. Everytime someone would hit SOME of these sites and see the horrible slow downs that occured with the prominently marked "SEE MY NEW JAVA MENU" then people associated "Java" with crappy GUI development. Java might help certain aspects of coding but it doesn't suddenly create automatically efficient code. You can still use all the memory you want even though you're not specifically allocating it like you might in other languages.
This is why Java was better on the server side. Having a server implies that you have more experienced coder doing the work. This typically (not always) means tighter code and better resource use. Hence java client side received boo's and name calling and java server side is quickly replacing other languages.
Now client side it didn't help that even experienced programmers saw performance problems with their client side applets. I would still say it wasn't the code itself that ultimately caused the downfall. I certainly wouldn't say it was MS. Additionally I think this is a shitty way for SUN to try to get market share. SUN already sued MS and got a settlement along with a nice chunk of change, kicking MS out of that market, and killing a couple of MS's initiatives. They could have taken steps back then to take control of their destiny instead of constantly deferring to MS for the success or failure of Java. They failed to do that.
A good example of Sun’s screw-ups. (Score:4, Interesting)
OSX [apple.com] you can see that Apple is putting the JAVA API at a coequal level with the Classic, Carbon and Cocoa APIs - all the others being Apple products. This is exactly the kind of treatment Sun has always wanted; Sun's Java being setup as a major part of the system architecture allowing it to run cross platform with the same capacity as native apps.
Now where is Sun supporting Apple in this? Apple offers a standard set of development tools as part of the OS - why isn't Sun writing or co-writing tie-ins for interface builder and Swing? Why aren't they optimizing the JAVA Apple API for Darwin? Why when you click on Java at Sun [sun.com] do you see absolutely virtually nothing about the Mac OSX platform? Why doesn't Java include routines to handle files with resource forks better?
If this isn't proof that Sun has no intention against standing behind Java implementation with real resources and real money I don't know what would be.
IE4 killed java on the client? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been writing Java code since JDK 1.0. I've done plenty of work with standalone clients, applets, and servers since that time and with every release since then, and blaming Microsoft is just plain revisionist history.
Not only was Netscape's compatibility with the Java standard much much worse than Microsoft's (Sun sued over nits while Netscape had major API differences!), but it wasn't even compatible between versions of itself. Minor point releases had major points of incompatibility with each other, and the stability of the JVMs included with Netscape was very poor to say the least.
I know that's not the popular viewpoint, but anyone who wrote significant java code for the browser back then should recall how painful it was to deal with the Netscape Java flavor-of-the-week and how hard it was to work around the things that would take out the browser. We gave up and went back to HTML.
But I don't think it's fair to blame Java's death on the client entirely on Netscape either. Anyone remember what it was like to write client code with AWT? I'll tell you what it was like - it sucked. It took Sun two major JDK releases (1.1 and 1.2) to fix that with Swing, and Swing is such a pig that you need a pretty heavy client to run nontrivial applications.
So what we had was a GUI library that was not really very good for building clients and a major vendor who couldn't make a stable version or maintain compatibility either within its own releases or with the standard itself. And that's completely independent of Microsoft.
I think any chance of Java making it on the client was killed when Sun decided not to offer it originally as a plug-in. Had it been a plug-in then at least Sun could have controlled the quality and compatibility of the implementations on the street - across all browser vendors. Notice that Macromedia has done an excellent job of that with Flash.
Sun did, eventually, move to that design - but only after the war had been lost.
It might be nice to blame Java's client woes on Microsoft, but in all honesty - as much as I hate Microsoft - I can't do that. Java failed on its own demerits.
Re:Can anyone explain me... (Score:2)
MS had a agreement with sun to do so (Score:2)
Well they signed an agreement saying they would, back in the day when IE was competing with Netscape and having a java enabled java was an advantage.
Re:MS had a agreement with sun to do so (Score:2)
I remember an internal memo leaked from Sun, or something like that, where they were pretty much kicking themselves in the ess for putting/allowing poor wording in the contract, knowing MS's sneaky verbal history with the gov Desent Decree.
Anybody have a link? The web mirror in my head has degraded over time.
It's their product, yes, but.... (Score:2)
99% of people don't get their Windows from Microsoft, they get it from resellers. Resellers who should have the right to build systems as it suits them, as it suits their customers-- and without anti-competitive Microsoft meddling.
Further to the point, Microsoft claims IE is an integral part of it's operating system and that critical features of Windows depend on IE. If this is so, why was it shipping a crippled version of java with it then?
Everyone's objection with Microsoft is about what Microsoft did to ultimately control how Windows was used-- thats is what is pissing most people off.
It's about a monopoly playing dirty to protect its monopoly.
Sad News ....... Java found dead (Score:2, Funny)
Responibility, Anti-trust and Monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Well That my freinds is the whole point of the anti-trust act. It recognizes that there is a diffence between a small or competative company and a company with dominant market leverage. And the law says that the rules are different for you and you do have some rules of conduct imposed on you. Yes your liberty as a large entity is restricted for the public good. But of course you are enjoying the fact that your rise to power was enabled by free markets and in return this is what you must not do: Use your market dominance to stifle innovation
the classic example of the latter, is at one point general motors could have made cars that only run on GM gasoline. Of course, they didn't and of course now they would not have the leverage to do so. But that is the nature of the law that protects free markets.
The negative example is APPLE. Sure apple is a closed system. But given their pathetic market share they do not dominate a market sector sufficiently to impose their will on another market sector. Some would argue this by trying to narrowly define a "market sector". And this is exactly what MS has done in court, except they tried to widen the defintion to show they were not dominating a market sector or they tried to widen it to define an OS as encomapssing browsers, VMs etc... Really its not an entirely bad argument for them to make, but that's whay we have courts and that is why it has taken this long to get a decent well considered and appealed decision.
so now we have one and its fair. It imperfectly punishes MS but the crime was vague too. So its a solomonic compromise.
my only regret is that I wish that there was sort of RICO act for this. That is MS has clearly shown that it has made the same nature of violation many many times. I was dissapointed that Penfields decision was not carried out because while the Appeals court was correct in saying the decision was too harsh for the crime at hand, it ignored the preponderance and repetion of minor violations that was ingrained in this comapny and required a structural remedy not a penalty.
Re:ACs are not karma whores (Score:2)
Re:ACs are not karma whores (Score:2)
At least that's my impression from the Subject.
Re:ACs are not...but YOU are a TROLL (Score:3)
Re:Okay... and...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay... and...? (Score:2, Informative)
Not the point.... (Score:2)
Statements like "Java on the client is dead" are just false, because that statement means that Java as a client-side technical solution is dead, which is not true. Yes, Java is not the language of choice for writing a web browser or a word-processor, but Java is an _excellent_ language for client-side business applications. It is far superior to VB, Delphi and PowerBuilder (especially when you couple it with J2EE), and that is where client-side Java fits.
Re:Okay... and...? (Score:2)
Plus, I am not the one making extraordinary claims, and so the burden of proof is not on me. It is on the people who make alarmist, sweeping statements like "Java is Dead", just because they can't go to the store and buy MS Office for Java or whatever they think constitutes the entire breadth of software development.
Re:What I don't understand about the whole deal... (Score:2)
Re:What kind of comparison is that? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, it wasn't that good of a comparison. I am sure the murderer was worried about getting caught and punished, and had to constantly look over his shoulder. Microsoft does not. Yes, murder is worse that illegal monopolistic practices. Duh. That is not the point.
Re:good riddance to bad rubbish (Score:2)
Re:MS didn't kill Java (Score:4, Insightful)
For example?
poor performance
Have you used it recently?
repeated incompatible upgrades
Example? The only thing I can imagine you're referring to is the Swing classes that replace or enhance AWT. That was a welcome change by just about anyone's standards.
costly support requirements
What are you talking about, this is pure FUD
and expensive development tools
They never billed me for emacs, I thought it was free?
Re:MS didn't kill Java (Score:2, Interesting)
IAAJP. I'm the lead programer of a medium-large sized database client used in trade unions in Sweden. I developed the program three years ago and have maintained/expanded it ever since. I take exception with your exceptions :-)
The applet security model (breaking the box)? 4 different "standards" so far, all confusing and incompatible.
- Netscape
- IE
- Java 1.2
- Java 1.3
Java 1.2 was worst by far... Required the end user to run PolicyTool from a prompt and specify specific operations to be allowed on a per-program basis. In java-esque syntax, no less.The pre 1.2 situation was also horrible. I managed to make a system in which the same code could be run, trusted, in both Netscape and IE, while also cacheing the jars locally. NEVER ask me to do something like that again! I lost half my hair.
The situation is pretty OK now, though.
Only every day, my son. On a very fast modern computer with Java 1.4 it now runs like a sloth in a snow storm, as opposed to a turtle on its back. At least the actual GUI is now barely usable, though startup time is still horrible.
AWT to Swing, yes. Also the Swing move from com.sun to javax, the three different printing API's... Not to mention the fact that the original Swing was horribly broken in many ways (focus handling, tables), so that everyone had to make hacks and patches to make the damn stuff even work. Hacks and patches that will (did) break the program in later JDK's.
Even if your program is 100% kosher, there is a grave risk that it won't work as planned in any other Java version than it was built for. Which is why most Java apps ship with their own JRE.
I'm not sure what he's getting at, but having five sysadm guys running around for a week tweeking the individual clients to make the app run could cost a bit. Though you should be able to program around that.
Totally agree. The JDK is free. Emacs is free. Heck, NetBeans is free, and JBuilder is cheap.
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:2)
I wonder if this is a case of too-early-adoption. It strikes me that many things that make it off the development chalkboard build in so much stuff that the current generation of hardware doesn't support well. If the adoption rate is really slow, then hardware has a chance to catch up with it so that when you get to mass-usage performance falls in line with what people expect.
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:2, Funny)
Java isn't dead, it's just deprecated.
graspee