Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses IBM Java Oracle

IBM and Oracle To Collaborate On OpenJDK 160

Posted by Soulskill
from the what-does-the-color-blue-taste-like dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Today, IBM and Oracle announced their intent to work together to accelerate innovation on the Java Platform, leveraging OpenJDK. IBM and Oracle will also collaborate to support the Java SE 7 and Java SE 8 schedules presented recently at JavaOne and to continue to enhance the JCP."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM and Oracle To Collaborate On OpenJDK

Comments Filter:
  • Can somebody more familiar with Java and the overall Java scene clue us in as to whether this is a good thing?
    • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:41PM (#33863448)

      I'm sure this IBM-Oracle teamup will produce an amazing result with the reliability of LotusNotes and the developer friendliness of an Oracle database tool.

      It'll also have... well, crap. You're going to get sued if you use it no matter which parent is dominant there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by MrEricSir (398214)

      Java is the new Caldera Linux; buy it and you'll end up being sued by the very same people who sold it to you.

    • Well, think about it like this - there was one giant slow mega-corporation working on stagnating Java development before.

      Now there are TWO mega-corporations known for their agility working on a single piece of software. With strong commitment to committee-centered development.

    • by TopSpin (753) on Monday October 11, 2010 @06:49PM (#33863990) Journal

      Can somebody more familiar with Java and the overall Java scene clue us in as to whether this is a good thing?

      These joint announcements would appear to break the log jam that has prevailed over Java for the last few years. Sun simply didn't scale to open projects and gradually found itself at odds with the JCP on many fronts. Oracle and IBM have now slated specific items from the JCP backlog for future OpenJDK implementations, implicitly anointing both the JCP and the (open source) OpenJDK as the official future of Java. That is the closest thing to a 'plan' that has appeared in the Java world in about four years.

      The Oracle vs. Google thing is very troubling. Google made Java work in a huge way on Android. Networked, mobile, embedded stuff was use case for which Java was originally intended. Java badly needs to inculcate that success. Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

      • by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Monday October 11, 2010 @07:26PM (#33864354)

        Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

        So it will be wildly successful with billions of lines of code still in use powering a ton of the infrastructure that modern-day business relies on?

        • Otherwise it will assume the role its detractors have often accused of it; the COBOL of our day.

          So it will be wildly successful with billions of lines of code still in use powering a ton of the infrastructure that modern-day business relies on?

          Shhh!

        • by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @01:01AM (#33866298)
          Well yeah, but it won't be cool to talk about it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          Yup, and most of it will be written by people who have a lot of knowledge of the problem domain and a tiny bit of knowledge of programming, making the code very hard to maintain. It will then be used for about 20 years longer than the original designers expected.

          I've likened Java to COBOL before. It's not a criticism, just a point that they both fill the same niche. Java was created as a language for average programmers (that was a stated design goal) and it's succeeded in this - people with little know

        • The downside is, sometime in the 22nd century, people will be screaming & tearing their hairs out maintaining the ancient code that I wrote back in 2010! Though that will be their problem, not mine.

      • by Eskarel (565631)

        Thing is though that Android doesn't actually use Java, just a java syntax, so if anything the success of Android is hurting Java by further diluting it.

        • Thing is though that Android doesn't actually use Java, just a java syntax, so if anything the success of Android is hurting Java by further diluting it.

          So what happens if Dalvik becomes the new Java? I, for one, have more trust in Google than Oracle.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          Please stop repeating this nonsense. It uses a language which has:
          • Java syntax.
          • Java semantics.
          • A load of standard classes in the java.* namespace.
          • A different VM for execution.

          Saying it's not Java is like saying gcj is not Java because it compiles Java code to native code rather than to JVM bytecode.

          • by Eskarel (565631)

            You can't take a compliant java application and compile it into Dalvik and have it work, you can't take compliant java byte code and run it in dalvik and you can't take dalvik byte code and run it in a compliant JVM.

            gcj is not java, it's a convertor from java to machine code.

    • by Eskarel (565631)

      It's a start.

      At this point, there are a few major threats to java. Oracle and IBM getting into a hissy fit and forking it, the fact that Oracle is involved in it poisoning it, the JCP process getting bogged down and causing it to stagnate, and .NET just being a lot easier to use.

      This change doesn't actually eliminate any of these problems, but it does mitigate at least the first three, which are crucial to doing anything about the 4th.

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:29PM (#33863372) Homepage Journal
    For work reasons we have to use the sun JDK on our linux boxes. However since Sun/Oracle doesn't set up a yum repository for the thing every time it's updated we have to go manually download the thing, unpack it and then put it in our local repository. It's a huge pain in the ass and I'm hoping that the OpenJDK will become a drop in replacement for the official JDK so it can be put into mainstream yum repositories.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Not trying to be facetious, but this is the #1 reason I'm using Ubuntu instead of FC or OpenSUSE. (Not just Java specifically, but Java, restricted codecs, Flash, etc.) It also updates all of the relevant alternatives for me, as part of the package install, which is also very nice.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I switched to OpenSUSE from Ubuntu for my Linux install, and that's the thing I miss the most. Most things are in the repository, but a few of the things I use aren't.
      • by timbo234 (833667)

        The Java, Flash and restricted codecs are all in the Opensuse repositories. Opensuse installs flash and java automatically when you install it if you have the 'non-oss' add on CD. If not you can simply add this repo after installtion and install them.
        The restricted codecs are a 1-click install: http://opensuse-community.org/Restricted_formats [opensuse-community.org] [opensuse-community.org]

        The procedure might be slightly different from Ubuntu's but it couldn't be simpler, really.

        (double-post the other one I accidentally clicked 'p

    • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:48PM (#33863500) Journal

      It already is a drop-in replacement, unless you're dealing with software that makes remarkably stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on.

      Unfortunately, that may be a lot of software -- I know Oracle's own JDeveloper uses some internal Sun JDK stuff, when there's no reason they couldn't use the standard public API for the same thing which OpenJDK also supports.

      Still, if it's in your power to do so, fix the app. If OpenJDK breaks it, chances are, a future Sun JDK will break it, too.

      • by Chep (25806)
        try, as I have, to use OpenJDK to do plain dumb Play! Framework development under Eclipse (either vanilla Squeeze or Lucid Lynx)

        My experience at it is that it will crash about every time you change a bit in a page. Went back to the Sun JDK in no time.

        Hopefully one day that gets better (and I'm sure it will, eventually)
      • by LizardKing (5245)

        It [OpenJDK] already is a drop-in replacement [for Sun JDK], unless you're dealing with software that makes remarkably stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on.

        I assume Tomcat is "stupid" software then? It has issues running under OpenJDK. Many other Java applications also become unstable or unpredictable under OpenJDK - soi much so, that I wouldn't trust openJDK on any platform or for any application.

        • That's not what I said.

          I think Firefox is altogether an excellent browser, but I think they've made some remarkably stupid decisions with regards to HTML5. That doesn't make all of Firefox "stupid software."

          Similarly, I would imagine Tomcat is mostly well put together, but has made some stupid assumptions about the JDK it's running on. I'm also curious if it still has those issues...

          • by LizardKing (5245)
            Tomcat makes no assumptions about the JDK it's running on - the issue is the quality and consistency of behaviour of OpenJDK versus the Sun or IBM JDK. The latter two do not have any issues running Tomcat (or NetBeans, Eclipse, etc), whereas OpenJDK does.
            • But which behavior? Actual, specified behavior, or private interfaces no one had any business using?

              • by LizardKing (5245)

                But which behavior?

                Locking up, crashing. Those trivial kinds of things that don't happen with Sun or IBM JDKs. Nothing to do with using non-public APIs.

    • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:55PM (#33863552) Journal
      openjdk is in FC's yum repositories. It seems to be decent enough for my uses ( and red hats).

      Its passed the certification test for Java [softwhere.org].

      What else, besides your companies policies, would have to change for you to consider it a drop in replacement for the official JDK that is available in mainstream yum repositories?
  • by mpapet (761907) on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:32PM (#33863404) Homepage

    I get that java is *the* enterprise-y choice for applications, but I still don't get it. I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project, so I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

    What is communicated as a collaboration is more a transition for what would have likely gone abandonware with a rats nest of Intellectual Property issues perpetually constraining re-use.

    Please, correct me if I'm wrong because I never got Java from the beginning.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheSunborn (68004)

      Oracle have so much existing software written in Java that they kinda need to keep Java alive.

    • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:44PM (#33863472) Journal

      I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project,

      Maybe because Oracle, being enterprise-y, has an absurd number of applications which run on Java? Improving Java performance means nearly all Oracle applications run faster. Making Java more flexible as a language and as a VM means they have more powerful tools and better techniques going forward, which they can use for developing things which plug directly into all that legacy Java code they've got.

      And while Oracle certainly has the rights to close as much of it as they like, hopefully even they realize it's in their best interests to collaborate with the community (including IBM), rather than trying to go it alone.

      I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

      And why do you think IBM has a better incentive than Oracle?

      • by Rexdude (747457) on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @12:14AM (#33866114)

        And why do you think IBM has a better incentive than Oracle?

        Disclaimer: I work for IBM's Java Technology Center.
        Because IBM also uses Java as the core component of all its software brands - Rational,Lotus,Websphere,Tivoli - all of them run on IBM's Java. Also IBM provides JDKs for its own platforms (AIX, z/OS and Linux on System p/z) to support the same brands. Essentially,Java is crucial to allow modern enterprise applications to run on mainframes and legacy OSes like System p/z without having to code native applications for them, and which can benefit from the traditional stability and processing power of large mainframes.

    • I don't see the economic incentive for Oracle to keep this project, so I'm guessing the bulk of the Dev work is transitioning to IBM.

      Well, look at it this way: your stereotypical Java enterprise project probably uses Oracle as its database. Conversely, while many .NET enterprise projects still use Oracle, the default database choice there is probably SQL Server. A project built in freer languages is probably looking at something like a PostGRE and not Oracle, etc. Java projects really are one of their b

      • by alannon (54117)

        I'd be curious to actually know the real numbers, how frequently enterprise Java applications run on Oracle. I've worked for several large enterprises that standardized on Java as the development platform, but almost exclusively used MS SQL instead of Oracle for the databases.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kenneth Stephen (1950)

      This is an uneasy truce where two competitors agree to not put pressure on the swords that they have at each others throats. Oracle invested considerably in Sun, and knows that the biggest asset that Sun brings to the table is their Java related people and knowledge-base (and not Sun's proprietary hardware). Java is incredible valuable to Oracle since they have also bought up BEA Systems (who produced WebLogic - leading J2EE container) and are using this acquisition to position them as a vendor that can do

      • "BEA Systems (who bought WebLogic - leading J2EE container)..."

        There. Fixed that for ya.

        In the early days (around '98 or thereabouts) if you wanted to write Java code that talked to an Oracle database you went to download it from Weblogic's website (long before they were acquired by BEA). It wasn't so much the case that Oracle's driver implementations were crap, it was that they just plain didn't exist!

        Weblogic had a bloody good app server; sad that they got totally borged and reborged.

    • by CynicTheHedgehog (261139) on Monday October 11, 2010 @06:06PM (#33863628) Homepage

      This is some of what Java has going for it:

        1. Massive standard class library covering everything from smartphones to distributed application servers
        2. Huge amounts of third-party support. If you can think of it, someone somewhere has written a library for it, and chances are it's open source
        3. The best IDEs in existence. NetBeans, Eclipse, IntelliJ, etc. all come with built in support for unit testing, dependency management, source control (mercurial, SVN, git, you name it), profiling, local and remote debugging, etc.
        4. Agent support for instrumentation and runtime redeployment. Using tools like JRebel I can edit code in my IDE and see the results instantly in the application server, and *still* take advantage of strong typing, etc.
        5. Object-Relation-Management (ORM). Tools like TopLink and Hibernate mean that you can reverse engineer a class model from a DB, or generate a DB from a class model, and use the ORM API to effortlessly add optimistic locking, transaction management, and object based queries to your app
        6. Application servers support distributed transaction management (XA) and messaging (JMS) on top of a generalize connection management framework (JCA) in which any vendor can provide a standard connector (resource adapter) to their systems and participate in global two-phase transactions
        7. Open driver support for virtually every data store; lots of choices for embedded in-memory SQL/RDBMS databases
        8. Container-based pooling, caching, and transaction management
        9. Dependency management and build systems like Ant, Maven, Hudson, and Sonar that enable you to very easily configure scheduled builds with static code analysis, automated unit tests, and concise reports of errors with references to changesets included in the build
        10. Perhaps the largest collection of forums, blogs, and online documentation for any platform
        11. Strong typing, API contracts, and runtime introspection identify issues at compile/deploy time, rather than runtime
        12. Strong industry support from multiple vendors (Google, Oracle, IBM, RedHat, etc.)

      So, if you're writing a little GTK widget for managing your MP3 collection, maybe Java isn't for you. But if you are a medium-to-large business chances are you either develop or administer an enterprise-scale Java application.

      Another thing to consider is that the vast majority of Java tools and libraries are open source, and many of the specifications are formed once an open source toolset reaches a certain level of maturity/popularity. For example, Hibernate did most of the legwork for JPA; JSF was initiated largely due to the success of Struts; and WebBeans is a formal spec defining the basics what Seam provides. So all Oracle really has to do is keep the JCP going and publish the standards while RedHat (JBoss), IBM, the Glassfish development team, and everyone else provides the implementations. Oracle stays competitive with IBM and RedHat by offering a development stack (based on Oracle DB, Oracle AS, Oracle JDeveloper, etc. all of which use Java) *and* continues to collect licensing fees from the other players. Plus they have a little more say in the JCP process, which gives them a slight advantage when ratifying new APIs.

      Not to mention that Java is installed in over 2.6 billion handheld devices, each of which pays a royalty fee to Oracle.

      What surprises me is that Oracle is partnering with IBM on this venture. I wonder what IBM has on Oracle?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gtall (79522)

        "I wonder what IBM has on Oracle?" Business respectability. No one in their right mind trusts Oracle further than they can spit a two-headed rat. IBM is similar. However, if you have two two-headed rats, you, as a PHB, can buttress your choice of Java + Database + business application software as being dual sourced. Without IBM, its Oracle and their dumb lawsuit against Google. Few organizations would attempt what Google has done with using the language but not the infrastructure. But yer basic PHB won't se

      • So, if you're writing a little GTK widget for managing your MP3 collection, maybe Java isn't for you. But if you are a medium-to-large business chances are you either develop or administer an enterprise-scale Java application.

        It's true! People say "Java is the new COBOL" as if that's a bad thing. Java has become the lingua franca of business logic. Kudos to the non-Microsoft world for taking that spot.

    • Don't forget, all of Oracle's customers use Java (like it or not, it is the leading enterprise development language/platform) - and they have a lot of investment in hardware and software that can't be transitioned to Windows (the Java apps can be, but the big-iron hardware often cannot).
    • by Eskarel (565631) on Monday October 11, 2010 @10:32PM (#33865608)

      Because if Java fails, .NET takes over, and .NET integrates a lot smoother with MS SQL than with Oracle(not that you can't access Oracle, just that the built in frameworks are all based on SQL). MS SQL is essentially the number one threat to Oracle's business in the short term, since for the vast majority of cases it's a perfectly viable solution, generally costs less(presuming you already have any MS products in your organization), and to be honest, Microsoft are a lot nicer to deal with than Oracle.

      IBM and Oracle both desperately need Java to survive, that's half the reason that Oracle bought Sun in the first place.

      • Java = yes .Net = no

        I'm not a big fan of java, but come on... Java is *everywhere* from a phone in your pocket to the mainframe in the datacenter, including windows, and .Net is nothing but Windows.

        Really, it's a no contest/brainer.

         

        • by Eskarel (565631)

          If you're talking about Web Services which is where things like Java and .NET are growing, the only thing which has to be Windows is the server you're hosting the application on, and .NET is sufficiently nicer for that to be a tradeoff you consider. Relying on any third party plugin to be present on your client's PC is really rather risky in this day and age anyway.

  • No? Then I don't know that I care.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jernejk (984031)

      Do you remember when MS had their own JVM and then started adding "extensions" to java? Yeah, that was bad. It was MS's embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Id bound whatever you implemented on MS's java to Windows platform. Which is exactly the opposite of what java is all about. And yes, Sun sued them and MS discontinued it's own java and tarted .Net. Sun was considered to be the good guy and MS the bad guy.

      Now please explain to me how Google, doing exactly the same as MS did, is now the good guy?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because Microsoft called it Java, and Google doesn't?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Joehonkie (665142)
        Only if you please explain how Davlik (which does not claim to be Java, although that is the language it uses) is "doing exactly the same thing?" especially since their complaint is that is has LESS features than normal Java, rather than more. I have never seen Google make any claims of 100% cross-compatibility between Davlik and Java.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheSunborn (68004)

        Google is not doing exactly the same thing.

        The big difference is that Microsoft and Sun made an contract where Microsoft were given a license to use suns source code to suns java implementation, in order to optimize it for Windows. Provided that their implementation were a full and exact implementation of Java.

        What Google have done is made an independent implementation of the java language* and part of the class library which Sun ship java. It would be the same thing if they had choosen c# instead and then

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Please turn in your programmer card. You've fallen for the deception that a language specification is the same thing as an execution environment, aka virtual machine, or -- even worse! -- an entire software platform. How did you become confused? Because common practice is to use Java as a cover-all term to mean Java the language, Java the JVM, and Java the platform. A programming language defines semantics, NOT the governing machine. A standard can include library details, but that is NOT the same as the co

  • It's a trap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wonkavader (605434) on Monday October 11, 2010 @05:42PM (#33863464)

    Not sure how, but it must be. OpenJDK is something Oracle doesn't make money on, as far as I can tell. Whenever Oracle touches something it doesn't make money on, it always makes an attempt to crush it between it's teeth.

    • Re:It's a trap (Score:5, Informative)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Monday October 11, 2010 @06:15PM (#33863706)

      Not sure how, but it must be. OpenJDK is something Oracle doesn't make money on, as far as I can tell.

      Oracle makes money selling software that uses Java.

      People working on improving Java without Oracle having to pay them is, therefore, in Oracle's interest.

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      Whenever Oracle touches something it doesn't make money on, it always makes an attempt to crush it between it's teeth.

      Given how much it has already in Java, maybe this is why IBM stepped it and made an offer Oracle couldn't refuse?

  • I'm not really sure if this is good or bad. It sounds like it couldn't get much worse. The cloud Java has right now is will it become a language ment only for interfacing with an Oracle system or will it be maintained as a language for things outside of the database world. IBM at least has a stake in it being more then just a lang to interface with one kind of system. That being said they can't be any worse then Sun was since a lot of the new functions in Java 6 and Java 7 came from IBM anyway. Heck ju

  • If Oracle is actively supporting a free open source, implementation of the JDK, how does this affect their case with Google? how do they claim damages for a product that is available for free?

    • It was released to the open-source community under the condition that to be patent-compliant, forks had to maintain a certain level of compatibility. Android is not close to compatible.
      • by hawguy (1600213)

        Right, I understand that Google can't fork openJDK and do what they want with it, but since they didn't do that and claim to have written their JVM from scratch, how do you compute damages against a product that is available for free, source code and all. If anything, Android promotes Java and makes it more popular, so I fail to see how Oracle can claim that it damages them?

        • by medv4380 (1604309)
          If you think of Java as a language then you're right. However, Java is considered to be a platform now just a language. As a platform what Google is doing is very bad, but as a language it is very good. It basically boils down to java code written and compiles for Android cannot work or run on any JVM outside of the Android platform. Oracle is also a little bit upset that Google sniped some of the Java devs when they bought Sun and everything went into limbo. Probably comes down to that Anti Trust suit
        • The J2ME VM is not free; phone vendors pay a lot of money to Snoracle for it. Just multiply the price of J2ME by the number of phones that have Dalvik instead of J2ME.

    • by Eil (82413) on Monday October 11, 2010 @06:41PM (#33863914) Homepage Journal

      The complaint with Google was that Google was infringing on Oracle's patents and copyrights via Android. Google's official and legal response [groklaw.net] was along the lines of, "WTF are you talking about?"

      My own theory is that Sun (and now Oracle) liked the profits they were receiving via licensing royalties from mobile phones that shipped with an embedded Java environment. Google did an end-run around these royalties by developing their own third-party JVM, Dalvik. When it looked like Android would gain a decent foothold in the smart phone market, Oracle probably thought they needed to do something. Maybe they have this opinion that they "own" all parts of Java.

      (My understanding is that Dalvik and Java(tm) are completely different, except that the human-readable source code for both happens to be the Java programming language. A programming language itself, so far as I know, cannot be copyrighted. Patented, maybe, but you would have a tremendously difficult time trying to find any feature of a "modern" language that doesn't have decades of prior art.)

      As for OpenJDK, Oracle appears to be the copyright holder of the source code and are entitled to any Java copyrights or patents applicable to it. Whether they give it away for free or charge for it doesn't matter.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KarmaMB84 (743001)
        The patents are for the inner workins of a VM for Java like programs. They apply to the JVM (obviously), MS CLR (which is probably more or less their old JVM with modified instruction set) and probably Dalvik. Oracle probably had the analysis done long before they launched their lawsuit. I think Google will have to go for the jugular and get the patents completely thrown out if they want to avoid having to pay the same kind of money Microsoft pays for .NET.
  • I really don't think bodes very well for OpenJDK. Both Oracle and IBM have tons of resources but often don't see eye to eye and aren't above using this and the JCP as a proxy for competitive battling. I see this drowning in politics and little in Java being improved in a timely manner. Meanwhile, things like .Net will accelerate with Microsoft firmly at the helm, and other open source options that are more agile (Ruby on Rails, etc.) and have more benevolent or open-minded stewards will become more popular

    • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Monday October 11, 2010 @07:16PM (#33864246)
      > I really don't think bodes very well for OpenJDK.

      Huh? How do you get that. Now you have the resources of *two* giants working on Java and ensuring it remains compatible and new features are added.

      > I see less and less hope for Java adopting the positive language and library features from the C# and Ruby worlds. I am currently working on a C# project, and things like LINQ, anonymous types, extension methods (haven't used dynamic yet) and the functional/fluent programming styles they enabled enhances my productivity compared to Java.

      Java users for large-scale projects doesn't generally don't want to adopt these things. They have massive existing investments and projects that take years to complete (due ot the sheer number of featiures being built). They can't throw that away every two years for the next coolest version of Visual Studio with new things in it. Enterprise software architecture is a different beast and has strategic considerations that don't correspond to tactical niceities (eg. LINQ). A lot of the Java feature conservatism is deliberate because you can get people with less experience to be *productive* in Java earlier. .NET rapid feature adoption is deliberate because Microsoft need to continually add features to Visual Studio to ensure you buy each release (which unfortunately can prematurely obsolete your investment in existing code - which is one reason enteprises don't always pick .NET - can you see how rapid feature adoption might be good for the desktop but as a result would be bad in the enterprise?).

      The deliberate simplicity of Java means you can do *massive* projects with it (where you get a spectrum of developer abilities and the time scale is long where the people who start the project may not be around at the end). When you start to use more obscure features you limit how big your project can get, since not everyone will use the feature in the same way or be bug-free with it. I'm sure those C# features are nice, but it turns out Java already has a vast array of alternatives (some see this as an advantage, some as a disadvantage) and the features you speak of are significant for small projects but aren't a significant part of the code-base for *massive* projects.

      In short, .NET is designed to be great to build your desktop apps and moderate-scale webapps in, and Java is designed to run your bank and Internet-scale services (millions of simultaneous users). Simply different horses for courses with different advantages. It is not like the JDK team and Java users don't see some of the new stuff in .NET, but it turns out that what is good for .NET would not be good for the stuff developed in the Java space (although .NET devs don't always grok that).
      • by ndykman (659315)

        The process can slow down if Oracle and IBM decided to apply their efforts in different directions. If one is pulling one way, and the other pulls the other way, then nothing happens, just a lot of strain. Now, it could be different, but so be it. Having seen IBM and Oracle reps work in as part of a OMG standardization process, it could definitely go either way. They could really get some work done in the JCP, or they can just bog it down to nothing.

        I know when C# and .Net come up, it is hard to split them

        • > The process can slow down if Oracle and IBM decided to apply their efforts in different directions I believe the announcement is they wish to work together. Wouldn't this mean that they should be moving in a common direction? > If you look at the C++0x efforts, a lot of vendors are adopting draft features already This sounds good but about 15 years ago I wrote a C++ program that I maintained for a decade. The use of 'draft' features made it a pain to maintain, and was worse as I was keeping it po
  • by c0lo (1497653) on Monday October 11, 2010 @06:33PM (#33863860)
    And a good move, too... At a certain time, people wondered why IBM let the SUN be bought by Oracle: it would have been a more natural choice given that IBM is so much into Java.

    The way I see, IBM is progressing now towards a stewardship role in Java, without bothering with all the SUN's hardware business (which would have been a dead-weight for it)... and this without spending a extra nickel, on top the strong investment in Java IBM already has.
    Almost a perfect solution... the only drawback being the Imaginary Property in Java still being owned by Oracle (with known consequences... the minuet and other high society dances Oracle chose to drag Google into).

    • If the Google settlement (over Java patents) turns out to be anything like the Microsoft settlement, IBM likely could have made the purchase price back based on that alone.
    • by Tim C (15259)

      At a certain time, people wondered why IBM let the SUN be bought by Oracle: it would have been a more natural choice given that IBM is so much into Java.

      Oracle is also heavily into Java though - they bought BEA to get WebLogic, huge chunks of their Fusion middleware stack is written in Java, etc.

  • An unnamed source at IBM informed us that their primary goal with the joint venture was to improve Minecraft's performance

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Working...