Java's Greatest Missed Opportunity? 362
Posted
by
Zonk
from the steaming-cup-of-dissapointment dept.
from the steaming-cup-of-dissapointment dept.
jg21 writes "It looks like Bruce Eckel has hit the nail on the head again. No sooner did he finish stirring debate by writing about the 'departure of the Java hyper-enthusiasts,' previously discussed here on Slashdot, than he now rubs salt in the wound by highlighting in AJAXWorld Magazine how and why Java missed its golden opportunity to become the language undergirding Rich Internet Applications. He comments: 'We must ask why Java applets haven't become ubiquitous on the internet as the client-side standard for RIAs....This is an especially poignant question because Gosling and team justified rushing Java out the door (thus casting in stone many poorly-considered decisions) so that it could enable the internet revolution. That's why the AWT and Applets were thrown in at the last second, reportedly taking a month from conception to completion.'"
Re:Lemme guess...Microsoft stopped bundling Java? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft's Chickenshit Actions Killed Java (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Flash and Plugins (Score:5, Interesting)
Flash would have lost out as badly as Java, but judicious use [youtube.com] of the plugin combined with an extremely small runtime brought it back from the brink of failure. But only flash. You'll notice that the spinoff technologies like Shockwave have all but disappeared, except for particular circumstances like some Web Games. (The same area in which Java Applets continue to live on as Zombies.)
Re:Missed the Boat on Missing the Boat (Score:3, Interesting)
Java was "wrong". The technology seemed like a good fit to webbrowsers, but the implementation focused more on the type of functionality that Canvas [wikipedia.org] and Flash offer rather than acting in a more useful role as a DOM Scripting language. Had Java taken the latter route (which would have required that the JVM be loaded at all times), it might have been more successful in that space. Unfortunately, by the time anyone got around to pushing Java into the DOM Scripting space, the implementation was screwed up by poor Livescript interfacing.
AJAX/DHTML is still a very young industry, partly because ubiquitous DOM Support is still a very new thing. (No thanks to Microsoft's inability to support the specs. Grrr.) If and when the WHATWG specs are ratified, I think you'll see a massive uptake in the capabilities of the average application.
If you still don't believe me, take a look at Canvascape [abrahamjoffe.com.au] and tell me that the prerelease technology isn't already impressive. All without sacrificing the existing Javascript/DOM design.
Re:Missed the Boat on Missing the Boat (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's also important to point out that 95% of those who claim to know Javascript, don't know the first thing about writing it. I was just discussing "hardcore" Javascript with a fellow the other day. His opinion appeared to be that Internet Explorer was a lot easier to write code for than Opera. He never followed up on my reply, but I have a sneaky suspicion that he would have produced code like this: It's so incredibly difficult to open the eyes of coders to the scalable, Object Oriented world of Javascript when they are so used to integrating cutsey scripts into their pages.
Bloatware, Lawyers and Clowns (Score:3, Interesting)
- The bloat that came in with swing [wikipedia.org] and its successors.
- The lawsuit vs Microsoft, which stopped me migrating my ActiveX-based applications to it. What were Sun thinking?
- Obnoxious zealots with their "thin client [wikipedia.org]" bullshit. I remember one embarrassing retard arguing that "Java is a religion". Yeah, right, we all want to work alongside guys like that.
Why did you do it, Sun, why? Oh well, back to AJAX, where the "J" should have been short for "Java".JavaScript 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Missed the Boat on Missing the Boat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But it's too late. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Flash and Plugins (Score:4, Interesting)
Flash has thrived because Macromedia learned their lessons from Shockwave and weren't afraid of destroying their existing market in pursuit of something much better.
The fact that Google spent $1.6 Billion on a site that's dependent on Flash is a strong validation of the technology.
Re:Article's autho works for a rival company, igno (Score:4, Interesting)
He also said "We do see relatively amazing Ajax-based tools like GMail and the other Google tools which are slowly seducing me (but I repeat: it took Google to create those, not Joe garage-programmer)."
Look, Google did not invent AJAX. They were just the large company that had the balls to launch a major application using the technology. Joe gargage-programmer had been developing "AJAX" application for years. However, they did so on smaller custom apps. Also, many programmers were forced to support legacy browsers which severely limited the role of AJAX and its ease of implementation.
Google wasn't the first company with the technology to launch an AJAX app...they were the first ones with the balls to launch it. They basically drew the line in the sand on browser compatibility (with the help of Mozilla.) Microsoft could have done this years earlier...but chose not to. They basically decided to pursue and promote web standards and protocols...and brought javascript back to the forefront.
I don't know how Flex fits into this, but didn't Adobe hand over the code to Flash to Mozilla? I believe soon, REALLY SOON, you will be seeing more Actionscript/Javascript interaction natively in the browser. When that happens maybe you could return that license of Flex you paid so much for.
Saving Java applets: Flash video replacement (Score:3, Interesting)
If C# is superior to Java, it's not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's be honest; MS were able to benefit from Java's evolution without having to support the dead-ends and (retrospectively) mistaken design decisions that Java accumulated over the years. C# is pretty much what you'd expect if someone were to design a new, legacy-free not-close-enough-to-get-sued copy of Java with the benefit of hindsight and without the issue of compatibility.
Not to dismiss some of the nice features, but it's easier to see the need for (and implement) them in a language piggybacking on 7-8 years worth of someone else's experience.
I have some concerns... (Score:3, Interesting)
not released the needed Flash 9 software for this platform -:)
So I decided to do bit more reading...
1) MXML - I don't like coding in XML. PERIOD. Maybe the extent of it is laying out your widgets, but my experience
is that even doing "simple" configuration with XML leads to migrains in short order.
2) Flex sdk may be free (as in beer) - but the Builder costs $499. This is a show stopper for many,many people. Even folks
working in well funded shops usually "play" with new technologies on their own time and money and then convince
management to make an investment. Sure maybe you can get by with just a text editor, I don't know. But it leaves a bad taste
in my mouth - if I am going to commit to learning something new I want all the tools at the start.
3) Flex Data Services - "after 1 cpu you are considered an enterprise user, please contact adobe..." Don't forget your checkbook.
Something tells me that if I wanted to do something interesting/complex involving a database I am going to have to pay. Likely
another show stopper.
5) The whole enchilada is controlled by Adobe.
Flex, it was nice meeting you - good luck.
Enough with the applets already (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article's autho works for a rival company, igno (Score:3, Interesting)
He says a lot of misleading things in the article.
Now, however, you can download the free command-line Flex compiler to create static SWFs, and you can deliver these from your web site without paying any fees. The compiler, framework, and debugger are all free, so there's no reason to avoid using Flex.
Well, no, I can't download the free Flex compiler, because I run Linux, and it's not available on Linux. I actually spent some time on Adobe's web site just now trying to find out what was actually available. I couldn't find any link from http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/ [adobe.com] to any "free command-line Flex compiler" at all, just links to a demo version, and a version that costs money. Maybe he's referring to the demo version? That's pretty pathetic, if he's telling people the cost of the compiler is no barrier because a crippled demo version is available. I couldn't find any information on the web site about what operating systems the demo version would run on, so I went through the registration process, and when I finally was ready to download, the only options were Windows and Mac. Last I heard, the Mac version was a beta.
However, with Flash 9 and beyond, all the players will be released within weeks of each other, and this policy should hold for future versions of Flash. So now you don't have to worry about complaints from anyone. Build your UI with Flex, and it will "just work."
Uh, I've got a complaint. I installed Flash 9 on my Ubuntu box, and it didn't "just work." It crashed my browser. I had to deinstall it and reinstall Flash 8.
I spent a bunch of time about a month ago looking into the idea of using Flash as a platform for writing OSS. At the end, I concluded that it just wasn't a viable choice.
So basically Flash is a totally proprietary platform from A to Z. You buy a flash book and try to compile any of the nontrivial programs in it without paying money to Adobe, and it won't work. I got "hello world" to work with MTASC, and beyond that, it just wasn't possible; there's just not enough source-level compatibility.
Why in the world would anyone want to hitch their wagon to YAPPL (Yet Another Proprietary Programming Language)???
arguments against AJAX? or Flash? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's one of his criticisms of AJAX:
And more and more often, when I use web applications like GMail, my "control-c" copy operation stops working. [...] When things this simple are broken, the outlook is not promising.
Hmm...Flash 9 crashes my browser (Firefox on Linux). This is the Flash 9 that is no longer supposed to be a beta. I'd say that when things this simple are broken, the outlook is not promising for Flash.
He says Java is:
Not Cross-Platform Enough
Hmm...Flash 9 doesn't work for me on Linux. Flex isn't available on Linux, and I believe the Mac version is still a beta. Flash Player isn't available at all on 64-bit Linux, or on FreeBSD, so your only alternative would be something like Gnash, which isn't really far enough along to be able to run most flash apps. So yeah, I guess Flash is cross-platform, if you run Windows -- but maybe not so much if it's not a platform that Adobe thinks is profitable. Java, on the other hand, is never going to be locked out of an entire platform, because the whole Java infrastructure is GPL (or will be within a month). You want Java on your platform, you're free to compile it for your platform.
People are very familiar and comfortable with Flash, and it is installed on almost all machines in the world. It's trusted, stable and reliable.
Huh? Many people consider flash a nuisance. Trusted??? Why does he think flashblock exists? Maybe because many people don't like flash?
Installation is a no-brainer for everyone. You don't have to answer questions or do anything special; it just works.
Hmm...I didn't find it to be that much of a no-brainer. Here are my notes on installing Flash:
Um, Flash has done exactly the same thing. They changed the syntax of the language between AS2 and AS3. Recommended coding practices have changed drastically over the various versions of Flash. If you read any recent Flash book, they tell you not to code the way people used to code in Flash, because apps coded the old way turned out to be unmaintainable. The main difference are that:
Re:Missed the Boat on Missing the Boat (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this as a Java developer of 11 years. (1996, baby!) Yet I am perfectly happy logging in and telling the world that Applets are dead. In fact, I can't wait for them to become a distant memory. They have done so much to tarnish the reputation of Java that it's not even funny. Java has found much better uses in a variety of other industries. It's time to let DHTML and AJAX mature into the role of rich web content.
[Info: I make a living building RIAs (Flash Appications, mostly - I wish Java would be up to the job as initially intended)]
No it's NOT time DHTML and Ajax to take over! Heaven forbid. It is, though, now that it is finally open sourced, after 10 years for some smart people to finally take control of Java and turn it into what it was intended for: The reference for all things RIA. Since nearly 10 years has Flash been the best thing we had for truly x-plattform RIAs with a penetration of far more than 90% install base. Dealing with the Java VM has been as pleasant and as interesting as grating fingernails and Sun didn't do *squat* to change that. Java still is the only existing, mature technology that has the potential to lead the way in RIAs. It is the only potential competitor to Flash (XUL Runner will take another half decade I presume) and now that it's OSS someone might just get it to step up. The Article, btw, mentions *this* as the primary reason why Java didn't take off and landed where it shurely does not belong: At the server side. The
I nearly agree on all points - only I hope that Java finally arives where it was intended to land in the first place. Now that it's OSS Sun can't be a hindernace anymore. Add a usable vector engine, solid audio, video, streaming and GUI oriented developement options and maybe a VM that doesn't suck to install and Java is back on track.
But then again, being that Java developers like you are happy where they are it could be that Flash will continue to lead the way for a very long time. If Adobe doesn't screw around to much they can hardly go wrong.