Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:13 UTC, submitted by meianoite
Java Straight from the ADC site (a free online account is enough to gain access to the download): "Java SE 6 Developer Preview 8 is an implementation of Sun's Java SE 6 for Mac OS X v10.5.1 and later. This Preview includes Java SE 6 version 1.6.0_01. This Developer Preview does not change the default version of Java. This release is only for Mac OS X v10.5.1 and later, and should not be installed on earlier versions of Mac OS X. This release is for 64-bit Intel-based Macs only and cannot run on PowerPC-based or 32-bit Intel-based Macs."
Order by: Score:
Sweeet
by J.R. on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:44 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

finally ;)

Although I do not use a Mac, I do program with Java.

Reply Score: 2

Too bad
by mbot on Thu 20th Dec 2007 11:13 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

It's such a shame that they have to support 32-bit x86. The Core Duo was the only Macintel chip without 64-bit support and was sold in Macs for less than a year.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Too bad
by thebackwash on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:49 UTC in reply to "Too bad"
thebackwash Member since:
2005-07-06

It's funny, because I have a 32-bit core duo macbook, but I agree with you. Apple probably should have waited until they could put all 64-bit intel chips in their computers, because I'm sure maintaining the two codebases is a royal pain in the ass. (They might have internal tools that make it pretty trivial, though.) They did have the opportunity to have a straight 64-bit kernel, which might have been nice.

Reply Score: 1

Not good enough...
by gjames on Thu 20th Dec 2007 12:46 UTC
gjames
Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm sorry, but this really isn't good enough. Java 6 was released by Sun over a year ago, and in that time what have Apple come out with... a developer preview that works on a handfull of their supported platforms. This is a joke!

Apple do not care about Java. They probably never did. It was simply a means for them to acquire a few hundred thousand new customers (and applications) for their (at the time) fledgling operating system, OS X.

Since upgrading to Leopard my iMac has been almost dormant. As a Java developer, a machine that doesn't support the latest and greatest from Sun is useless to me.

In the mean time, anyone with a vested-interest in Java development on OS X should throw their weight and support behind community-driven efforts like SoyLatte - http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not good enough...
by kaiwai on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:55 UTC in reply to "Not good enough..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

For god sake - how many developers use the latest and greatest Java? heck, there are java developers out there that are still using 1.4.x for goodness sake!

I don't honestly know what planet you're on but apart from those on the bleeding edge of development, most developers are still sitting on 1.4 and 1.5 - there is no need to go to 1.6 unless there are major deficiencies - and even THEN when you compile your code into bytecode, it can run on older versions.

Oh, and btw, nothing stops Sun from creating a version for Mac OS X - if there was such a massive outrage, where is Sun to step up and say, "we'll create a Mac OS X version"?

Edited 2007-12-20 14:57

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not good enough...
by gjames on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good enough..."
gjames Member since:
2005-07-07

For god sake - how many developers use the latest and greatest Java? heck, there are java developers out there that are still using 1.4.x for goodness sake!


That's not the point. Apple effectively loured Java developers to the platform by claiming it would be a "first-class citizen". Now they seem to be pulling the rug out from beneath us.

I don't honestly know what planet you're on but apart from those on the bleeding edge of development, most developers are still sitting on 1.4 and 1.5 - there is no need to go to 1.6 unless there are major deficiencies - and even THEN when you compile your code into bytecode, it can run on older versions.


What is it with people on this site and their attitudes? Is there really any need for it?

Why wouldn't a developer use the latest version of Java available? The only reason that I can think of is lack of support on a given platform... Catch-22.

How do you know what most developers use? I find all this amusing considering the minute a new OS X version comes along apps are dropping support for the previous version left, right and center.

Oh, and if I happen to be using new API features in Java 6, I can assure you that the bytecode won't run under a previous version JVM.

Oh, and btw, nothing stops Sun from creating a version for Mac OS X - if there was such a massive outrage, where is Sun to step up and say, "we'll create a Mac OS X version"?


You're totally missing the point.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Not good enough...
by memson on Fri 21st Dec 2007 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not good enough..."
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

I'm not a java developer, but i'm a developer who has some insight into this issue. I do DotNet, and we are still on 2.0. Why? Because 3.0 is available, and 3.5 is also out? Why? We value our customers. With 2.0 we have a known quantity. Conservatism is not a dirty word! I, as a developer, would absolutely love to use the cool fluff in 3.5. The whole LINQ thing looks really cool, but like I said, customers come before wizzbang new fluffy ball-balls.

Before DotNet I did Delphi. We were still using Delphi 5 (circa 1999) in 2005 for much the same reasoning - even though Delphi 7 was an extremely good IDE and compiler.

Stability is king in the world of software. Anyone denying that is a complete fool.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not good enough...
by gjames on Sat 22nd Dec 2007 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not good enough..."
gjames Member since:
2005-07-07

As with Java, .NET is able to support multiple runtime environments on the same machine so the whole issue of 'upgrading' to .NET 3 or Java 6 is moot from an end-user perspective.

Of course I agree with you completely though - it all depends on the customers. If your market research or feedback from customers leads you to believe that they are not willing, for whatever reason, to use the latest runtime environment then of course that's a valid reason not to upgrade your development environment.

In the end-user market you are very unlikely to come across that type of customer though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Not good enough...
by memson on Sun 23rd Dec 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not good enough..."
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

No, the point is more to do with uncontrollable forces. ASP.Net 1.0 and 2.0, to give an example, are runtime compatible, but until re-added web projects, as per VS.Net 2003, there was a forced upgrade that implied a whole new extensive full regression test. Fuller than if they had left well alone.

Any time you change runtimes - and to use 3.5 features, that is implied, the costs for all product releases ramp up. Releasing a product without fully testing is exactly the type of foolish behaviour that ruins customer relationships and loses sales.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not good enough...
by Nadir on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good enough..."
Nadir Member since:
2007-05-09

For god sake - how many developers use the latest and greatest Java? heck, there are java developers out there that are still using 1.4.x for goodness sake!


So ? I'm not one of them. I develop J2EE software and use Java 6 both for the improved performance of the VM and for some of the new features (javax.scripting)

Oh, and btw, nothing stops Sun from creating a version for Mac OS X - if there was such a massive outrage, where is Sun to step up and say, "we'll create a Mac OS X version"?


I believe there is an agreement between Sun and Apple... maybe that is what's stopping them.

Also Apple claimed that Mac OSX would be one of the best platforms for developing Java apps... but I don't want to be bound to a vendor's operating system version to run my software: why can't I use Java 6 on Tiger when I can run Java 6 on Windows 2000 and RedHat EL 3 ?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Not good enough...
by ahmetaa on Thu 20th Dec 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good enough..."
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

we do use Java 6 in our projects. it is required.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not good enough...
by angryrobot on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good enough..."
angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Well, actually as a Java developer, I would say I kind of agree with gjames to an extent. Wasn't it Apple that told Sun "we'll make the JVM, thanks"? Sun doesn't provide a JVM for OSX for this reason.

Also there are loads of good reasons one might want to develop with the latest Java on OSX. For instance, what if I develop a product and I want to test for forward compatibility on the newest JVM? I don't think that's an odd situation AT ALL.

So... I think it sucks that they are behind the times and no, it's not Sun's fault, it's Apple's.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not good enough...
by evangs on Fri 21st Dec 2007 07:52 UTC in reply to "Not good enough..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

So ... instead of using Java 5 which has very nice integration with the OS, you want people to use a port of Java 6 that uses X11 on OS X?

Do people really hate Apple that much? Apple has always released the latest version of Java a few months after their latest OS release. Java 5 was released a few months after Tiger. Java 1.4 was released a few months after Panther. Guess what? Java 6 is going to be released a few months after Leopard.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is never wise. Just wait for Apple to release Java 6. Ignore the rabid Java developers ranting on Javalobby and you'll find that most Java developers are happy to wait for Apple to release Java 6. Using some half baked port just so you have Java 6 instead of Java 5 smacks of unadulterated stupidity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not good enough...
by gjames on Fri 21st Dec 2007 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Not good enough..."
gjames Member since:
2005-07-07

So ... instead of using Java 5 which has very nice integration with the OS, you want people to use a port of Java 6 that uses X11 on OS X?


As stated on the page I linked to, X11 was the first "simple" step in porting Java 6 to OS X. They have already started work in writing native AWT interfaces to Cocoa.

If desktop integration is important to you, you'll be pleased to know that is one of the main areas in which Java 6 improves things. ;)

Do people really hate Apple that much? Apple has always released the latest version of Java a few months after their latest OS release. Java 5 was released a few months after Tiger. Java 1.4 was released a few months after Panther. Guess what? Java 6 is going to be released a few months after Leopard.


I don't hate Apple. I love everything else about OS X. But as much as I do the OS is useless to me if I cant do my day-to-day work on it.

As for their Java release schedule, that's no excuse, it simply isn't good enough. It has been a YEAR since Java 6 was released. If Apple are unable to provide Java Platform releases in a timely manner then all they need to do is come out and say it, I'm sure Sun would throw resources at it, and would probably get the community involved too.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is never wise. Just wait for Apple to release Java 6. Ignore the rabid Java developers ranting on Javalobby and you'll find that most Java developers are happy to wait for Apple to release Java 6. Using some half baked port just so you have Java 6 instead of Java 5 smacks of unadulterated stupidity.


You seem to forget that Java is cross-platform. The only java developers that have any concern over what Apple are doing are the ones that are developing on OS X. I would very much like to meet a developer that is happy to wait for Apple to bring out Java 6 while the rest of the development community on other platforms is getting on with taking advantage of the numerous improvements and new features in Java 6.

I didn't tell ANYONE to switch to SoyLatte, indeed in it's current state it would be unsuitable for general end-users. What I asked was for people to throw their weight (coding abilities) and support (vocal, word of mouth, knowledge) behind the SoyLatte initiative in the hope of it one day providing an alternative to the current situation.

I'm actually acting in Apple's best interest. If SoyLatte bares fruit then that's one less thing (of little interest to them) that Apple has to worry about. They can get on with building the iPhone 3G, the AppleTV, iTunes Movie Rentals, and other consumer-oriented concerns.

Reply Score: 1

huh?
by foljs on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:56 UTC
foljs
Member since:
2006-01-09

I'm sorry, but this really isn't good enough. Java 6 was released by Sun over a year ago, and in that time what have Apple come out with... a developer preview that works on a handfull of their supported platforms. This is a joke!

Is it? I thought IBM still has not updated their Java, for example. Is IBM not interested in Java too?

Meanwhile, if you write Java for the end user (or even for the enterprise for that matter) the only major OS that comes with Java pre-installed is OS X.

Since upgrading to Leopard my iMac has been almost dormant. As a Java developer, a machine that doesn't support the latest and greatest from Sun is useless to me.

Strange, because no real Java end user product uses the latest Java and no sane enterprise in-house project uses the latest either. For the 99.99% of them it's Java 5 all the way (or even 1.4).

So what exactly do you do "as a Java developer" that necessitates the use of Java 6?

In the mean time, anyone with a vested-interest in Java development on OS X should throw their weight and support behind community-driven efforts like SoyLatte - http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/.

Or maybe not. An X11 based port? Seriously? There are better Java porting projects out there aiming to eventually handle Cocoa.

Reply Score: 2

RE: huh?
by gjames on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:17 UTC in reply to "huh?"
gjames Member since:
2005-07-07

Is it? I thought IBM still has not updated their Java, for example. Is IBM not interested in Java too?


IBM caters to a HIGHLY specialised market, completely different to consumer/end-user Java.

Meanwhile, if you write Java for the end user (or even for the enterprise for that matter) the only major OS that comes with Java pre-installed is OS X.


No OS comes with the latest version of Flash installed... doesn't stop it being pretty much ubiquitious. As with Java, it's a simple download and install. With Java you can even have multiple JREs installed, so it's really a non-issue. If your product is worth it, people will install the Java version necessary... if they haven't already.

Strange, because no real Java end user product uses the latest Java and no sane enterprise in-house project uses the latest either. For the 99.99% of them it's Java 5 all the way (or even 1.4).


Who are you to say that? Why is Java 5 a better choice for end-users or in-house projects? If it's in-house project they'll use whatever they want and are able to.

As for end-user Java... you do know that Java automatically prompts the user to upgrade when a new release is available? I'd wager most end users have upgraded to Java 6 by now... a whole year since its release.

So what exactly do you do "as a Java developer" that necessitates the use of Java 6?


The company I work for specialises in Enterprise Architecture modelling applications. Nothing necessitated the use of Java 6 per se, it was simply a better choice from a development perspective. In all likelyhood Java 7 will have been released by the time the product we are working on is released.

Or maybe not. An X11 based port? Seriously? There are better Java porting projects out there aiming to eventually handle Cocoa.


Perhaps if you actually read about the project instead of launching straight into an attack on my POV you'd have realised that SoyLatte is already tackling "handling Cocoa". X11 support was a simple first step.

Edited 2007-12-20 14:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: huh?
by unoengborg on Thu 20th Dec 2007 18:34 UTC in reply to "huh?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Strange, because no real Java end user product uses the latest Java and no sane enterprise in-house project uses the latest either. For the 99.99% of them it's Java 5 all the way (or even 1.4).

Yes, 99% of all of todays applications may use java 5. What verssion do you think the applications of tomorrow will use? And when do you think these apps of tomorrow is developed?

Apart from that, Java 6 gives you much better performance than Java 5. It also fixes many annoying bugs. I would say that no sane developer would stay on the older versions if he have the chance to upgrade.

No, this really isn't good enough from a company that not that many years ago promised premium support for java. Today Red Hat experiments with IcedTea a Java 7 clone on their latest Fedora release, and what have Apple to offer, a preview of Java 6.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: huh?
by evangs on Fri 21st Dec 2007 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE: huh?"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Yes, 99% of all of todays applications may use java 5. What verssion do you think the applications of tomorrow will use? And when do you think these apps of tomorrow is developed?

Java 6 completely breaks compatibility with Java 5, meaning that any project that hopes to migrate to Java 6 needs to a complete rewrite.

Oh wait ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: huh?
by unoengborg on Fri 21st Dec 2007 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh?"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Java 6 completely breaks compatibility with Java 5, meaning that any project that hopes to migrate to Java 6 needs to a complete rewrite.

This is complete nonsense! It is perfectly possible to compile even java 1.4 code in Java 6. You can even specify a target version, so that the compiler generates the same bytecode that e.g jdk1.4.x would have done.

Another thing is that many projects would benefit from taking advantage of the new features in Java 6. This is why Java developers on MacOS have been so worried over the future of Java on MacOS lately.

Reply Score: 3

IBM has already....
by fithisux on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:26 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

Java 6 (for linux of course) and a patch set for Harmony. Meanwhile have you heard about cacaojvm and jamvm? I do not know if they are supported yet on MacOSX but they worth the try. Apple should have supported GnuDarwin more and not dropped its PPC hardware to attract IBM and more developers.

Reply Score: 1

Buy Mac, get Windows ...
by MacTO on Thu 20th Dec 2007 15:03 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

My Mini won't run this, because I have a 32-bit Intel processor.

My Mini won't run this, because I haven not paid the Apple tax for Leopard.

Oh wait, my Mini will run Java 6. All I have to do is install Windows XP first. Hey, Sun even lets you run Java 6 on Windows 2000.

In a sense, Java 6 doesn't matter to me. I don't need it. But it does matter to me psychologically: it is yet another example of how Apple tries to bleed their customers dry, even if their customers own products that are a few months old.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Buy Mac, get Windows ...
by Sabon on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:50 UTC in reply to "Buy Mac, get Windows ..."
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh wait, my Mini will run Java 6. All I have to do is install Windows XP first. Hey, Sun even lets you run Java 6 on Windows 2000.

In a sense, Java 6 doesn't matter to me. I don't need it. But it does matter to me psychologically: it is yet another example of how Apple tries to bleed their customers dry, even if their customers own products that are a few months old.


I think you need to stop drinking and sober up.

Name something the ---general public--- wants to run with Java 6? What? You can't name one? I thought so. Put the alcohol away.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Buy Mac, get Windows ...
by gjames on Thu 20th Dec 2007 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Buy Mac, get Windows ..."
gjames Member since:
2005-07-07

Name something the ---general public--- wants to run with Java 6? What? You can't name one? I thought so. Put the alcohol away.


The "general public" also don't care about Core Data, Core Animation, or any other of the Cocoa APIs. But I sure bet they'd miss them if Leopard had shipped without them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Buy Mac, get Windows ...
by segedunum on Fri 21st Dec 2007 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Buy Mac, get Windows ..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Name something the ---general public--- wants to run with Java 6? What? You can't name one? I thought so. Put the alcohol away.

The issue here is Apple's integration of Java into OS X and the pushing of Java forwards as a development platform for OS X, which would increase its installed base through applications. That's why Java 6 in itself is important. However, Apple don't get developers, don't get development tools, and Steve Jobs and Apple wouldn't understand that if they waited until Doomsday.

This is why OS X will continue to be a minority development platform, and hence a minority platform overall, and why Java developers who thought they had a nice cool platform to develop Java apps on will jump ship.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Buy Mac, get Windows ...
by mabhatter on Fri 21st Dec 2007 04:05 UTC in reply to "Buy Mac, get Windows ..."
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

I think they just rushed leopard out without Java 6 as it's not actually in use much yet. I think the 64-bit intel only is just the main build and the only one stable enough to release.

I do agree that Apple is getting greedy and stupid lately. I bought my new macbook in September, because Apple STILL hadn't released a date for Leopard and I needed it then. This kind of lazy behavior (the iphone, bootcamp, etc) really makes me worry that my higher-priced, longer-term investment is going to be made obsolete too quickly in favor of Apple "fashion". I have a 2002 ibook that was a hand-me-down with panther (tiger-capable) that recently died... do I have to start expecting my NEW mac won't be around, or supported as long?

Note I have a 2002 Dell notebook with XP running the latest everything just fine (including Java 6, but not games, of course) Apple has seemed to be ahead but going BACKWARD fast??? WTF

Reply Score: 2

Shut up, rent a brain ...
by DevL on Thu 20th Dec 2007 16:14 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

"My Mini won't run this, because I have a 32-bit Intel processor."

It's a _developer_ preview. Are you a serious Java developer? NO? Right, didn't think so. Expect a full release that supports 32-bit x86 and PPC once the bugs have been ironed out.

"My Mini won't run this, because I haven not paid the Apple tax for Leopard.

Oh wait, my Mini will run Java 6. All I have to do is install Windows XP first. Hey, Sun even lets you run Java 6 on Windows 2000."

Of course, but that would require you to pay the Microsoft tax...oh, wait that'll cost you way more than $129. And that's for an OS from 2001. Yes, off you go, buy Windows XP. Unless you intend to pirate it that is.

No, wait, don't tell me! You just happen to have an unused, fully licensed copy of Windows XP on your desk that magically landed there wihout you ever paying anything for it. Cool, Santa must be early this year I guess.

"In a sense, Java 6 doesn't matter to me. I don't need it. But it does matter to me psychologically: it is yet another example of how Apple tries to bleed their customers dry, even if their customers own products that are a few months old."

You, sir, are full of it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Shut up, rent a brain ...
by MacTO on Thu 20th Dec 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "Shut up, rent a brain ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

No, wait, don't tell me! You just happen to have an unused, fully licensed copy of Windows XP on your desk that magically landed there wihout you ever paying anything for it. Cool, Santa must be early this year I guess.


Well, I do have a fully licensed and otherwise unused copy of Windows XP Professional SP2. It cost a touch less than a fully licensed copy of Mac OS X 10.5 (I qualify for academic licenses). I had it since the days of Mac OS X 10.3. It's taking me that long to come out from Apple's RDF, but actions like this help wonderfully.

You, sir, are full of it.


You may try understanding other people's opinions, rather than degrading them for it. Note: understanding doesn't mean that you have to agree with them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Shut up, rent a brain ...
by Sabon on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Shut up, rent a brain ..."
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I do have a fully licensed and otherwise unused copy of Windows XP Professional SP2. It cost a touch less than a fully licensed copy of Mac OS X 10.5 (I qualify for academic licenses).


I'm assuming (probably incorrectly] that you are comparing the academic license for Windows vs the academic license for Leopard? Ooops ... NOT!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Shut up, rent a brain ...
by MacTO on Thu 20th Dec 2007 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Shut up, rent a brain ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I think you need to stop drinking and sober up.


Rather than resorting to slander, why don't you stick to the facts.

I'm assuming (probably incorrectly] that you are comparing the academic license for Windows vs the academic license for Leopard? Ooops ... NOT!


Again, check your facts. The institution that I work for offers Vista Business licenses for about $90, and Mac OS X 10.5 licenses for about $100. Pretty much the same could be said a couple of years back with Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.3.

Reply Score: 1

The reason for old versions
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:46 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

The reason people stay on older versions of Java (1.4 or 1.5) within a corporate environment usually is because their Java application server usually cannot handle a later version. IBM's Websphere is notorious for this (if you are a decision maker, please don't buy this awful product, Tomcat is usually good enough, free, and works with far more recent JDKs).

So, conservative clients force me to use JDK 1.5. Whenever I can I use JDK 6 though. It is noticeably faster and addresses something like 1200 issues (and enhancements) that were in JDK 1.5. On your local development workstation JDK 1.6 uses far more hardware acceleration than JDK 1.5 (which matters if you are running a Java based IDE for development). JDK 1.6.0u5 will use hardware accelerated DirectX for *all* graphics operations on Windows, and you don't have to touch a line of your own code. Nifty, eh?

Shame Apple under-resource the Java team though (that's the only explanation I can think of for the slow progress). Java 6 is very easy to install and update on Ubuntu (and Java is installed by default through the GNU gcj).

[Edit: fixed typo, s/that/that's/]

Edited 2007-12-20 20:48

Reply Score: 5

RE: The reason for old versions
by draethus on Fri 21st Dec 2007 06:01 UTC in reply to "The reason for old versions"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

Java 6 is very easy to install and update on Ubuntu (and Java is installed by default through the GNU gcj).

You've obviously never used gcj, because it only supports Java 1.4 (and not even fully), and it only supports 2 modes of running Java programs: compile to an executable with gcj, or interpret with gij. There is no JIT, so the Java bytecode in any classes loaded dynamically at runtime are executed through slow interpretation.

Reply Score: 3

People don't get it do they ?
by Nadir on Fri 21st Dec 2007 10:14 UTC
Nadir
Member since:
2007-05-09

I care about Java 6 on the client, but I NEED Java 6 on the server.

Reply Score: 3

v Most stupid read in a long time
by wanker90210 on Fri 21st Dec 2007 11:16 UTC
Leaving Money on the Table
by MikeekiM on Fri 21st Dec 2007 13:50 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

Apple has a huge opportunity here. Just like it's lock on the scientific community with it's Unix OS and the apps that run on it, and the advertising artistic community with it's Final Cut software for example.

Java is a huge chance at a large chunk of Market Share. Apple needs to do an ROI calculation here. Under-investment in Java means "leaving money on the table". Not a smart management position.

Reply Score: 1