Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Java Programming

Sun backs off Open Java Plan 86

Posted by Hemos from the well-maybe-not-after-all dept.
Josh Baugher wrote a line to point us over to this Wired article. Sun has backed off the original plan to have Java submitted as an open standard to the Internation Standards Organization. Sun and the ISO have been arguing over things, because the ISO is a bit less then happy with having one company retain control of the technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun backs off Open Java Plan More

Sun backs off Open Java Plan

Comments Filter:
  • Amen! I am a full time Java consultant who enjoys writing most of my projects in Java (whenever it makes sense). There have been many programming languages that are accepted by the industry to be used by various projects and products, yet they are not open languages. So Sun, concentrate on Hotspot and other technologies that will make Java better and quit trying to standardize a language that doesn't necessarily need a standard. If those of you that use Java see that Sun isn't going in the right direction due to their control of the lang. spec, let them know -- they aren't going to do something stupid that will jeopardize their language's place in the industry. (At least I hope not!)

    Remember: C/C++ didn't have an ANSI standard for quite a while, yet it was found to be the best choice for many software projects.

  • Re:ISO changed PAS rules... C++ (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I like and use C++ every day ...

    Ack! Time for your medication :-).

    [Objective-c] [smalltalk] are worth liking.

    I only use C++ to get paid when I don't have any other choice.

    +The Original: [Anonymous Coward]

  • Eric, how many patents encumber MP3 and the MPEG-4 standard? Is there a reference on the web where I could look them up?

    BTW: I consider the ISO's policy of allowing patented standards simply awful. The IETF will accept nothing as an internet standard that is encumbered by patents. The ISO working groups are dominated by companies and works for their benefit. There is no point in a "standard" that you are not free to implement unless you pay royalties. That's just my opinion, of course.
  • I think both Kaffe and Japhar+Classpath are committed to providing a fully compatible Java implementation. This will not extend to replicating JDK bugs possibly, but I think all of those projects are committed to the Java wora concept.


  • Posted by kenmcneil:

    Currently a discussion similar to this, about the implications of Sun's death grip on Java, has begun on the java-linux mailing list. You can find more information about the list here [blackdown.org]. I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss this further to contribute. A good place to start is with the original post which was titled "Sun Bashing 2" ("Sun Bashing" was about Sun's lack of enthusiasm over Linx) and was posted by myself, kenmcneil@hotmail.com [mailto].
  • I'm not a GPL groupie either, but any language you choose to adopt in the long haul had bette be open.

    I agree. Who wants to spend a *lot* of time mastering a language that's controlled by some commercial entity, and then have them turn around and change the rules in the middle of the game? It doesn't matter how good the language is, or how many people are using it.

    I'll buy proprietary games and applications all day long, but I refuse to let a company (any company, not to single out just Sun) without my best interests in mind control the direction of my career.

    TedC

  • Sun is shooting themselves in the foot here.
    First, this is going to weaken their case against
    Microsoft, at least in terms of Microsoft
    developing derivative productions (J++ for example). Secondly, this also will open the
    door for others to cleanroom-develop a Java
    compatiable language (but not called Java or
    necessarily conforming to the Java specs), and
    then make derivatives of it, as to further
    pollute the Java landscape. At least during
    the ISO review process of C++, most of the problems
    were with vendor-additions to the language
    which were quickly pulled once the standard came
    out-- here, we have a possibility of several
    different Java-like languages that will never
    be sorted out.
  • Sun managed to get ECMA to ratify a Windows API specification, only to have it blown out of the water by MS when they tried to move it through ISO.

    Though MS are claiming that they haven't interfered this time I wouldn't put all the blame on Sun's head.
  • I want to wait for more facts about this before making (my) judgement - even though my gut reaction is that Sun should stick with their original promise to submit Java to ISO - they have been aproved as a PAS submitter for more then a year now.

  • ISO changed PAS rules... (Score:5)

    by Dawn Keyhotie ( 3145 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @08:35AM (#1909258)
    Microsoft couldn't kill Sun's ISO application outright, but they did have enough leverage to get the ISO committee to change the rules that apply to Publicly Available Specification submitter, or PAS, organizations. Initially, ISO created the PAS program so that hot new technology could be quickly standardized and submitted to ISO by the creator of the technology, instead of by the decades of committee wrangling that normally accompanies an international standardization effort. Witness C, C++, Fortran, etc. As a PAS participant, a company would drive the development of the new standard, with oversight and approval of the ISO subcommittee for that standard. While others would be free to implement their own compatible version of the PAS initiated standard, only the PAS submitter would be able to initiate changes in the standard, with the committee's approval of course.

    Microsoft applied pressure behind the scenes and got ISO to change the rules for PAS submitters so that once the technology had been submitted and approved, all control would be handed over to the ISO subcommittee. Sun, of course, has said from the beginning that they would always maintain control of Java(TM) and would vigorously defend it against all who would try to wrest control from them. As indeed they have.

    And now that ISO has changed the PAS rules to force Sun to either relinquish control of Java(TM), or drop the ISO standardization effort, Sun has chosen the path that is consistent with their stated goals of retaining control of the evolution of Java(TM), one of the most important new technologies of the Internet era. Bye bye, ISO.

    I agree with Sun's position, especially in light of the fact that the rules were changed out from under them in a sneaky back-room deal.

    Java(TM) will continue to evolve. Sun does need to a better job of public relations, and to help more people implement Java(TM) for their platforms of choice. While I agree that a GPL'd implementation would be best, I don't expect Sun to just throw in the towel and give up its control. They are way too 'corporate' for that. From a Sun shareholders perspective, that would be the equivalent of flushing money down the tubes. And lots of it.

  • ISO doesn't like java controlling sun, yet they let Fraunhoffer's PATENTED mpeg compression be an ISO standard?

    ** Martin
  • make that "sun controlling java" and continue on your merry way. . .
  • Has anyone noticed that slashdot now has it's own URL within wired? Anyone have any details on when/why this happened? Just curious...
    ~luge
  • I am glad to see the ISO is sticking to its mission and not incorporating Java(tm) as an ISO standard.

    Sun is indeed way off base with their feeble efforts to "open" Java(tm). Anyone who reads the Java(tm) licenses can see for themselves that this is just another proprietary pile of dreck.

    Way to go ISO!

  • to wonder about Sun's committment to Linux and the Open Source movement.
    In fact, the latest (April 99) listing of the software that powers the Internet shows that Linux has increased its percentage from the last quarter by almost exactly the total of the percentages of loss by Sun and the other unicies. Sun's CEO is seeing the writing on the wall: Linux is a threat not only to M$ but to other propriatary software also. They sat back on their 'system' and just raked in cash from exhorbant license fees, without adding to the features or ease of use of their OS, and let the Penguin swim right on by. Now, the Penquin is leading and the Sun is sinking in the West.
  • Linux is a copy of 1970's OS technology anyway
    ...which still runs faster and more reliably than any 90's OS technology available for my Intel box.

    Is it just me, or has the amount of FUDmeistering and general anti-anything-open mayhem gone up on /. over the last few weeks?

  • Go spend $10,000 on PC hardware. Then run Solaris x86 vs Linux.
    Fine. Send me a check for ten grand and I will.

    I thought one of the reasons to use Linux was so you didn't have to spend huge amounts of cash on hardware to get a fast and reliable machine. Guess I was wrong.

    Hardware bigots suck.

  • Thou misunderstandest me, methinks.

    All I said was that on my hardware, Linux runs faster and more reliably than anything else I've tried (Win95, WinNT, Linux, Be, Solaris x86, OS/2), okay? Currently I dual-boot Win95 (NT doesn't like my hardware very much) with MSIE 4/5 and Red Hat 5.1 -- I need IE for testing, and my two authoring apps of choice (Dreamweaver and Flash) aren't available for Linux, and I'm not all that great with Linux, anyway, I started using it mainly because I need to know my way around *nix webservers. I admit I also had some ideological motivations (I support the idea of open source, and I also spend a lot of my spare time testing Mozilla builds), but they aren't my only motivations. I doubt that'll change anytime soon.

    So far as programming goes, my current languages of choice are JavaScript and Java (I'm still not very good with Perl), but I try to keep my mind and my options open.

    And, as always, YMMV -- use whatever works best for you and enables you to feed your cats and make your car payments.


  • The sad thing is that these project will need to replicate Sun Java bugs to maintain "compatibility".

    ...

    For example, can you please tell me why it is impossible to exec() a program in a directory other than the one the java process was started in.


    I cannot reproduce this problem in an implementation as old as JDK 1.1.3 (which comes with Solaris 2.6). Can you name any more bugs in the language that actually exist?

  • Sun needs to understand the difference between 'open' and 'closed.' I think they're still having trouble with this. Between the overzealous activity of their legal staff in pursuing possible trademark infringements, their tendency to write somewhat draconian license documents, their semi-open "open source" licensing and this latest business with ISO, it seems to me that Sun just doesn't "get it." Surely they can get past their "control" issues if they're really interested in promulgating Java.

  • Dawn Keyhotie wrote:
    Microsoft applied pressure behind the scenes and got ISO to change the rules for PAS submitters so that once the technology had been submitted and approved, all control would be handed over to the ISO subcommittee. Sun, of course, has said from the beginning that they would always maintain control of Java(TM) and would vigorously defend it against all who would try to wrest control from them. As indeed they have.
    I'm no fan of Microsoft, but it seems to me that all they had to do in order to kill this deal is to require Sun to give up their total control of Java. So then, the question would be, is Java an international standard or Sun's private bailwick? If the former, Sun does have to give up control. If the latter, Java is not a standard at all.

  • DonkPunch wrote:
    My first reaction is that turning Java standards over to the development community will do more to standardize it than ISO certification could. Let it run loose in public for a while then let ISO come along later and rubber-stamp the de facto standard.
    I'm not sure it's even necessary to GPL Sun's code. But I agree, turning "Java the Standard" over to the community makes a lot of sense.
  • I like Java. It helps me get stuff done. The Blackdown JDK port is excellent and Swing lets me distribute in-house apps across 4 different platforms without a problem.

    But c'mon, make it a standard already!

    I'm sick of the pseudo-open nature of it. If they're going to hold on to it and keep it non-open, that's their decision. If they're going to open it up to everybody, that's their decision too. But stop with this "it's open - no wait, it's not open" business. There's too much momentum behind it for it to be hijacked now (as Microsoft discovered) by any single entity - even Sun. So stop trying to be an overprotective mommy and let it out into the world.

    Java has its place. Please let it go so we can get back to the business of using it.

  • Wrong. ASCII.

    Or, more precisely, ASCII is a subset of ISO 646, IIRC.

    X.400, or ISO MOTIS as it's also called, however is an ISO standard, which obviously has helped it in its battle against SMTP. I mean since it's an ISO standard you have thousands of fully compatible implementations, right? And nobody ever uses SMTP, which doesn't have this branding? (sarcasm)

  • Seeing what has happened to C++ after the ISO has gotten through with it has made me very distrustful of that organizations ability to handle standardization of a technology. I like and use C++ every day, but I think ISO was driven more by people who wanted neat features added than people who wanted a simple consistent language.

    Java currently is a simple, consistent language. That simplicity is very important to the spirit of the language. I can understand Sun's reluctance to hand it over to an ISO committee.

  • For more information, check here:

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/1 6/ns-7955.html [zdnet.co.uk]

    Apparently, Sun is upset because the rules were changed on them. See if you can guess who lobbied for these changes. They have not given up on standards processes in general; They've just given up on MS-ISO.
  • For MP3, Thomson and FhG jointly handle the portfolio of licenses and provide "one-stop shopping" to acquire MP3 licenses (see here [iis.fhg.de]). I don't know exactly how many patents pertain; I would guess more than five but less than fifteen.

    For MPEG-4, the licensing authority details are not yet set, but there is general intent to provide a similar one-stop mechanism. I would expect the legal machinery to be in place within a year. There are a lot more patents that apply to MPEG-4 than to MP3, maybe as many as 25 or more (but see below).

    Purely in my own opinion, I think that ISO is not nearly strict enough about managing patent claims on the MPEG standards. The basic argument, which is a good one, is that all of the relevant technology is held by patents, and good standard codecs could not be made if patented technology was not admitted. But IMHO the patent-holders are today allowed to abuse their privileges under this system.

    Of course there is a point to standards that are protected by patents -- many companies make a lot of money from them in spite of the licenses they have to pay (MPEG-2 video decoders, for example). But these patents also have the effect of making it difficult for hobbyists to develop conforming freeware and open-source products. This may, in fact, be the goal, but it is wrong IMHO.

    Not all of MPEG-4 audio technology is protected by patent. The audio synthesis codec that I developed at MIT and contributed to MPEG has been released into the public domain at my request.

    -- Eric Scheirer
    Editor, ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio standard)

  • Re:HA! This is funny. . . (Score:3)

    by Eric_Scheirer ( 14197 ) on Friday April 30, 1999 @08:21AM (#1909276) Homepage
    There's a difference between allowing a single company to control the standard and allowing patents into the standard. Contrary to popular opinion, Fraunhofer is not the only patent-holder on MP3 technology -- they participated in the MPEG process with a number of other companies. They have just been the most aggressive in pursuing infringers. And FhG doesn't control the *direction* of the standard -- only MPEG does that, and it's according to MPEG's normal working rules.

    The situation was much different with Java. Sun wanted simultaneously to have Java be an International Standard, but also reserve the right to make unilateral changes to the technology if they decided that it was in their interest to do so.

    The difference is clear for MP3 -- no individual company controls the MP3 standard; if revisions need to be made, this is decided by MPEG as a whole, not by Fraunhofer or any other individual company. Sun could not accept letting the other ISO members share in the role of deciding the progression of Java. This is their right, as they own the Java technology, but then the technology can't be an International Standard.

    -- Eric Scheirer
    Editor, ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio)

  • Sorry, but I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on your post. I like perl, even have fun when using it for work, but you seem to have a pretty unrealistic view of it, especially in relation to the strengths of other languages.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • OK. Please wake up.

    Just because Sun isn't going to make Java an ISO standard, doesn't mean that it isn't worth using.

    I will point out that Java has been out for a few years now, has been usable for that time, and is constantly improving its base of support and its performance on most platforms.

    It is a GOOD OO language with an execelent design philosophy. [ie: its C++ without the stupidity]

    The Virtual Machine is an excellent design, and its fundamental security is something to be very pleased with.

    Just remember, it might be written by a big evil corporation who sells their OS and hardware for $$$, but Java is a `free' technology which they allow anybody to download and use.

    I personally believe that anybody should be able to pick up development software for their machine at no cost, and Java has been an initiative that not only allows this, but allows one to also ensure that their apps will work on other peoples machines.

    Also, it might be better if it remains in the hands of Sun, rather than the ISO committee. Whilst sun retains it, we can at least rest safely knowing that Sun is not likely to do anything too stupid to it :)

    Anyhows, thats enough ranting from me for today...
  • with the exception of mutlithreading, perl can certainly do this.

    Which explains why no one is writing commercial-grade servers in Perl, while companies like WebLogic can sell themselves to BEA for $180Million, based on the strength of their Pure Java EJB server (and the roughly 1000 enterprise customers they grabbed in about 2 years).

    -jon

  • There are just way too many people here who say they will never use Java as long as it is under Sun's control.

    That's a completely self-defeating attitude. Java is a great language/platform/whatever. Development times are greatly reduced, stupid pointer bugs are a thing of the past, and the class libraries are pretty robust. I could also chant "cross-platform" until I'm blue in the face, but that's not the most important Java feature, IMHO. Making life easier for developers produces better software. The time I used to spend tracking down errant pointers is now spent improving my code. It's that simple.

    If you don't want to use a superior tool because you don't like the fact that it's not an officially sanctioned standard, you're making a serious mistake. If you're a professional, your competitors will just use the better tool and beat you. If you hack for the love of code, not using the most elegant tool pretty much defeats the point of writing elegant code. Use the best tool for the job; being a platform/language bigot is boring.

    -jon

    Java hacker since 1996

  • Except that you would make an ass of yourself. Even Sun has toned down the cross-platform rhetoric now that they realize it cannot be made a reality.

    I'm reasonably sure that I've said this before on /., but it bears repeating. I've written a multi-threaded messaging and middleware server which runs _without modification to any source or binary_ on Mac OS, Win32, Solaris, HP-UX, AS/400, and AIX. This was about one year ago, and Java has grown a bit in the past year. Name the other languages, then or now, which allow you to do the same thing.

    I'm currently writing a neat little program to help me organize fantasy baseball stats. I develop it at home on my Mac, and I run it unmodified on my NT box at work. The size of the Java executable (jar file): 60K. This program is sucking data down from Yahoo, organizing it, parsing date and time fields, saving files, and displaying data on-screen with Swing widgets. It's non-trivial. And it just works, cross-platform.

    It's pretty clear that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Java and it's cross-platform capabilities.

    All of this talk isn't just hot air- look at the mess VB has become under MS's closed control. Java will certainly go the same way as Sun morphs it into something more useful with Jini or whatever their latest plan is.

    Funny you should mention VB. Java is turning into cross-platform VB. For building in-house apps, Java w/Swing is a great tool, with multiple vendors supplying builder environments. Enterprise Java Beans are a very cool server-side technology, with support from about a dozen vendors.

    The key difference between Java and VB is that high-quality Java tools and environments are available from multiple vendors. The same is not true of VB. Java code can migrate and keep you from being locked into a particular vendor. The complete spec for the language and JVM are freely downloadable. Just because Sun OWNS Java doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of documentation out there.

    Sun has franchised Java to multiple vendors. Those franchisees get to call their product Java. If you want to clean-room a Java clone, it's certainly possible, given the info that Sun has released. Do you refuse to eat at McDonald's because they don't let anyone who makes a hamburger put up the Golden Arches?

    -jon

  • I'm no expert on the history of programming languages, but it seems to me that one of the big advantages of Java is that it doesn't carry around a lot of baggage; baggage from C or even it's own baggage.

    Java is still a young language, and even the best designs have problems that become apparent with use. I'd give Java some time to mature under the direction of an entity more nimble than the ISO. Rigorously enforced standards are most important for constraining the future of languages with a lot of extant code (C, Fortran). A young language should be able to make some deprecations and fix some mistakes because the tradeoff of making some amount of JDK1.0 or even 1.1 code incompatible is small compared to the importance of getting it right for the long run.

  • Sounds like Sun wants ISO to bless Java as an "open" standard, but also wants to retain complete control. It's not much of a standard if Sun can change it unilaterally. Not very open, either.
  • Ok, I'm posting quickly here. Maybe I need to sit and think about the ramifications of this concept. I reserve the right to change my mind later, but

    I LIKE that idea.

    My first reaction is that turning Java standards over to the development community will do more to standardize it than ISO certification could. Let it run loose in public for a while then let ISO come along later and rubber-stamp the de facto standard.
  • > Java could have ranked up there with perl as
    > one of the great languages of the 90's, but now,
    > at least in my mind, it has been resigned to bit
    > bucket with all of the other closed go-nowhere
    > languages that clutter the development > landscape.

    Closed?

    http://www.classpath.org/
    http://www.kaffe.org/
    http://www.japhar.org/
    http://www.cygnus.com/

    I wouldn't call GPL and LGPL "closed".

    And yes, where is ISO standard for Perl?
  • > Closed languages should be avoided.

    They should, but Java is not closed.

    www.kaffe.org
    www.classpath.org
    www.gjt.org

    > perl is far more portable than java.
    > Python too.

    Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl and Python, with exception of JPython which is as portable as Java. The only thing which is more portable than java is Squeak.

    From someone who uses Python and Java every day.

    > Even Sun has toned down the cross-platform
    > rhetoric now that they realize it cannot be
    > made a reality.

    Doesn't look like that at all.

    > Java will certainly go the same way as Sun
    > morphs it into something more useful with
    > Jini or whatever their latest plan is.

    ROTFL. Jini is a Java library.
  • > Yes. Sun controls the source for Java.

    No. Source for Java is controlled by whoever writes the implementation. Sun only controls
    the trademark and that stupid steaming coffee
    cup logo.

    > Soon one will diverge. Then there will be
    > "Kaffe-Java" and "Microsoft Java" and all sorts > of flavors of Java.
    > ISO standardization prevents this.

    ISO doesn't prevent that at all. Consider C++, which is ISO standard. C++ is so badly fragmented that many "standard" compilers can't even compile compliant C++ code, let alone proprietary extensions.

    The only thing which prevents fragmentation to some extent is a good reference implementation and testing suite which you can rely upon. ISO doesn't help you with that.

    > As for perl dovergence, so far it has not
    > happened

    One word: ActivePerl alias (blech) M$ PerlScript
  • > This is what ISO does. They give you rules for > opening compeition.

    I beg to differ. Existence of ISO C++ standard has done _nothing_ to prevent Micro$oft or Inprise from polluting the language with proprietary extensions.

    Face it: Reasonably complex Visual C++ apps are about as portable as Visual Basic ones. Hell, VB ones are way more portable, thanks to VB emulators for JVM and Linux.

    > You wouldn't have HTTP, HTML, ASCII, or TCP/IP

    And which of the above is ISO standard?
  • >> Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl

    > surely you jest.

    No, I fork() ;-)

    Seriously, the most portable environment ever is Squeak Smalltalk, Java (including JPython, Kawa, etc. ) and VW Smalltalk are second best. Perl and Python are far behind. They simply have too much Unixish dependencies in standard library and existing code to be truly portable.

    And try porting ActivePerl script which uses thousand wonders of COM and Windoze to Linux sometime ...

  • """
    Then Java should not be an open standard, and should also be fully ignored by developers until Gosling can find the time in his schedule to complete the language. No developer in his right mind wants to code in any closed language that may change drastically in the forseeable future.
    """

    It seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone should also ignore C and C++ and Unix ten years ago. They were all closed and proprietary and changed drastically, right? Remember BSD controversy?

    Well, if everyone did that, there would be no Linux, no Perl and no Java. We would all use Microsoft Basic and happily share drives over NetBeui ...
  • """
    I agree. Who wants to spend a *lot* of time mastering a language that's controlled by some commercial entity, and then have them turn around and change the rules in the middle of the game? It doesn't matter how good the language is, or how many people are using it.
    """

    This could be said of Unix twenty years ago.
  • >> HTTP, HTML, ASCII, or TCP/IP

    > Um, all of them.

    Wrong. ASCII.
  • Somehow I knew that people would find a way to blame Microsoft. Floods, locusts...blame Microsoft. The truth is, Sun is is competitive like any other company and was only giving lip service to the Kumba-ya, sit around the campfire and sing the praises of open source community. It is not like I need Java anyway. It I wanted to write low-level code, I would just use C++, it is a hell of a lot faster. Why does this bitchin' "new" language look some much like a 3GL..oh, but wait Linux is a copy of 1970's OS technology anyway.
  • I could care less about whether Slolaris is open source. I'm not a GPL groupie either, but any language you choose to adopt in the long haul had bette be open.

    This is a practical consideration. Look at the history of programming and see what closed languages have stood the test of time.

    If you're a developer, these things should matter to you.

    It doesn't sound like you are, so continue your worship of McNealy and co.
  • Java is still a young language

    I'd give Java some time to mature

    No, the part to mature is the JVM, or on-the-fly-compilation, etc. These are not parts of the language specification.

    The language specfication hasn't moved far in recent memory. This says to me that it is time to open it up. Don't buy the Sun bull.


  • The notion that the open source "bazaar" can exist without the "cathedral" of ISO is ridiculous.

    Even in the bazaar, vendors have rules for displaying their wares, and rules telling them not to steal lie and cheat.

    This is what ISO does. They give you rules for opening compeition.

    Certainly the standards process has more legitimacy than open-source development at this point. You wouldn't have HTTP, HTML, ASCII, or TCP/IP if it wasn't for some sort of standardization process. Open standards have served us well for 30 years. Only a moron would throw away that process.
  • Gosling has admitted that important things (genericity, design by contract) were knowingly
    left out

    Then Java should not be an open standard, and should also be fully ignored by developers until Gosling can find the time in his schedule to complete the language. No developer in his right mind wants to code in any closed language that may change drastically in the forseeable future.

  • I could also chant "cross-platform" until I'm blue in the face

    Except that you would make an ass of yourself. Even Sun has toned down the cross-platform rhetoric now that they realize it cannot be made a reality.

    perl is far more portable than java. Python too.

    All of this talk isn't just hot air- look at the mess VB has become under MS's closed control. Java will certainly go the same way as Sun morphs it into something more useful with Jini or whatever their latest plan is.

    Closed languages should be avoided. If anything in the history of programming languages is obvious, this is it. There is a great deal of anecodotal evidence to support this, but the best is that open languages survive, and closed ones die. Its fairly simple.
  • Closed?

    Yes. Sun controls the source for Java.

    There is no comparison to perl. You can download the full source to the original implementation (not a "clean room" copy) and modify it according to a very open license.

    Kaffe, classpath, MS Java etc. are exactly the problem. Soon one will diverge. Then there will be "Kaffe-Java" and "Microsoft Java" and all sorts of flavors of Java. ISO standardization prevents this.

    As for perl dovergence, so far it has not happened, but if it did, I would rally for standardization.
  • Name the other languages, then or now,
    which allow you to do the same thing.

    with the exception of mutlithreading, perl can certainly do this.
  • Sorry, Java is far more portable than Perl

    surely you jest.
  • Any notion I had of adopting Java for any project is hereby dropped.

    Sun is demonstrating that they are the Microsoft of the Unix world - they will manipulate Java in arbitrary ways to forward their goals, regardless of whether the users see any benefit.

    Beware closed languages. This lesson has been learned well by developers who have been bitten by closed 4GL languages in the past, for example (yes, I know Java is not a 4GL).

    Java could have ranked up there with perl as one of the great languages of the 90's, but now, at least in my mind, it has been resigned to bit bucket with all of the other closed go-nowhere languages that clutter the development landscape.

  • The PAS rules are ridiculous.

    Sun knows Java is ready to be opened up - they simply want to keep their hands on it.

    If in fact Sun does intend to make dramatic changes to the language, in which case it might be justifiable to keep tight control, then this is a warning sign to developers to keep away from Java until the dust settles. If the language is not going to change significantly, then developers should be suspicious of Sun's motivations.

    In either case, developers should steer very clear of Java for the forseeable future.
  • "In either case, developers should steer very clear of Java for the forseeable future."

    uhh yeah, OK, right.

    next!
  • I could only become convinced of a "sudden" change in the PAS rules if someone showed me: 1) a dated copy of the rules supporting Sun's position 2)a dated copy showing the "change".

    Having worked with ISO standards for some time at the networking company I used to work at (no names), I seriously doubt that ISO, at any time, gave Sun the impression that they (Sun) could retain control. Maybe this PAS thingie was different (again, I'd like to see the docs), but if that was the case, it would have been EXTREMELY uncharacteristic of ISO.

    In addition, a lot of the messages at ftp://dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/JSG/ seem to give lie to Sun's version.
  • The only evidence that Microsoft lobbied for this is Baratz's assertion. You can go and read the ISO e-mail discussions [dkuug.dk] yourself (be patient, slow server in Denmark); The Microsoft people basically kept their mouths shut and now everyone on the list is pissed at Sun.

    Baratz needed a scapegoat. Who else would he blame?

    LJS
  • The discussions of the Java Standards Group (JTC 1 SC22) can be found at ftp://dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/JSG/. Looks like anyone can join the mailing list, and anyone can read themail. ftp://dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/JSG/926 and up are the messages since Sun formally chickened out of submitting, and the reaction on the list is consistant: what the hell is Sun talking about? There's also general dismissal of Sun's assertions that Microsoft did any lobbying at all on this issue.

    You can also see the members of the list at ftp://dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/JSG/list.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close