Oracle and Sun Team Up to Provide .NET Alternative 335
segphault writes "Ars Technica has an article about the new partnership between Sun and Oracle, designed to provide an alternative to .NET." From the article: "According to Ellison and McNealy, their mutual goal is the production of a complete Java-centric enterprise datacenter architecture that leverages Solaris 10 and Oracle's Fusion middleware. Designed specifically as an alternative to Microsoft's .NET technology stack, the new platform is competitively priced and based on robust frameworks."
Re:Isn't this what EJB was supposed to be (Score:2, Insightful)
that hasn't stopped people from using EJB, though, and for some even liking it - remember that ignorance is bliss
people have used it because they were told that it was the right thing to do
however, in doing so, they have suffered serious productivity losses
if you notice,
why is this? IT REALLY IS AN UNNECESSARY TECHNOLOGY! for many reasons.
and if you look at EJB 3.0, it is so completely different than EJB 2.0, it would be hard to compare them
why, you may ask - EJB was done by a committee lead by IBM and Sun, with less than knowledgable engineers.
this is NOT a troll - i know this for a fact, have spoken to them,
and have heard them admit it was a mistake.
as you can tell, i have an issue with EJB or any crap technology 'standard' that is delivered to the general public as the right thing to do.
Proprietary (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole JDK1.5 API is public and totaly available to be implemented by anyone (www.jcp.org). Also there is already a 98%-complete implementation of it (www.classpath.org). OTOH, only a small part of
(that said, the most used Java Platform (Sun) is still proprietary)
imitation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than teaming with Larry Elliscum, a better move for Sun would be to open Java up to the ECMA/ISO for standardization.
fix java or give it up to the community (Score:4, Insightful)
i'm also sick of J2EE containers with class loaders schemes that are more complicated than my senior year algebraic structures course.
build a linker into java just like
than allow versioning of libraries.
then get rid of checked exceptions so i don't have to do try/catch/wrap/rethrows(or do nothing) in 90% of my J2EE code.
then get rid of stateful, local session beans - how redudant is that???
then find a way to get rid of the 14 million defines i need in my server.xml to specify which implementation of each 'open, standard' interface i need
so, java as a language - it's ok
java as a platform - SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
left java for
J2EE??!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
J2EE... we need a change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's funny... (Score:2, Insightful)
Get your facts together (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO some "reporters" only read what they want to read. Sun already has Java and it has got quite a big foothold to last. Solaris 10 is also kicking some serious ass. Why on earth would they want to directly confront a company like MS when they can easily expand their own market and slowly strengthen their position ? IMVHO the big competitor for Sun is Linux at this time. Something clearly displayed when looking at Novell which almost immediatly started "OpenSuSE" after the release of OpenSolaris. Coincedence? I wonder...
This step has IMO nothing to do with
Utopia? Then why is Oracle also jumping on the "opening up some products [oracle.com]" bandwagon ?
No, I don't think MS has much to worry, Sun is targeting another audience here.
Re:Pricing... (Score:4, Insightful)
What, like Office 12 XML? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why exactly would that help? Right now the Java standards are open to input from a wide range of voices, from individual developers through open source communities like Apache to corporations like Oracle and IBM. No voice has overall control, no-one can force through self-serving capabilities and everyone gets to use the specifications royalty free. All of them know their contributions can be implemented as open source yet that the market in which they operate can't be monopolised by any single company.
Sun started ECMA standardisation and then realised half-way through the process that it was going to produce the worst of all worlds; a rubber-stamp for the work Sun had done, with no input from any communities and a freezing of the specs by the ECMA dinosaur, combined with a loss of the ability to enforce the Java trademark and an inevitable embrace-and-extend by companies like Microsoft and IBM. Sun should have worked this out before starting with ECMA but fortunately realised in time and pulled out of the process. The result was the creation of the JCP and the most open, competitive software market the computer industry has yet seen.
Microsoft fully understands the PR value of ECMA and is cynically using it to rubber stamp it's Office 12 XML format to undermine the openness of OpenDocument. That action has done us the good service of showing us just how intellectually bankrupt ECMA actually is. What the Java platform needs is not the destruction ECMA would bring, but rather the further evolution of the JCP, which is working better than pretty much any standards body before it and is only hampered by the public perception of Sun control.
Re:Predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's funny... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pricing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this statement is that it assumes that the JVM design was 'brain damaged'. It wasn't. There were very specific design considerations which it met well: To be easily JITted/translated to native code, to be a compact code and the well suit procedural/OOP language Java.
The
The idea that the JVM is 'brain damaged' is just ranting. The sheer number of languages successfully implemented on the JVM provide the clearest possible evidence against this statement. Things could certainly be better, and it is likely that new opcodes will be added to future versions to make implementation of dynamic languages easier.
But anyway, one developer's 'brain damage' is another developer's sensible choice, so using such terms is meaningless.