http://www.osnews.com/story/17407/Java_2007_Year_in_Preview Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:47:20 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread?218022 http://osnews.com/thread?218022 instead of that half assed article, read here:

http://tech.puredanger.com/java7/

much detailed information. Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ahmetaa) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218027 http://osnews.com/thread?218027 Yay closures! Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ma_d) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218094 http://osnews.com/thread?218094 In 2007 Java will be completely underwhelming. There's really nothing in this article to excite anyone, surely there's more going on in Java-land than is described here. Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (richmoore) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218213 http://osnews.com/thread?218213 It is amazing how many people seem to think that releasing an implementation of Java under an open source license is the same thing as abandoning control over the specification of Java. Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218251 http://osnews.com/thread?218251 Isn't this the same article as this other one presented a while ago? [1] The dW link name seems to be slightly different but they sure look the same to me.

[1] - http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17224 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rcjsuen) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218295 http://osnews.com/thread?218295 > It is amazing how many people seem to think that releasing
> an implementation of Java under an open source license is
> the same thing as abandoning control over the specification
> of Java.

That's not the issue. The problem is that if the most advanced/popular implementation is free (as in freedom) then every little language designer wannabe can release slightly incompatible versions. Otherwise only large companies have the resources to do that, and they have the motivation to keep their version compatible (and thus get to call it "java" instead of "j" or whatever).

So, even if Sun wouldn't abandon the control over the official specification of java, it would have no control over the specs of all those j+-#&co that would inevitably(?) spring up.

That said, I myself welcome the freedom of java 7. Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (msundman) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218332 http://osnews.com/thread?218332 That's not the issue. The problem is that if the most advanced/popular implementation is free (as in freedom) then every little language designer wannabe can release slightly incompatible versions.

The reason Java is described as "write once, debug everywhere," is that all of the versions are slightly incompatible with each other.

But anyone who makes an implementation that's incompatible enough not to pass the certification test doesn't get to call it Java.

Otherwise only large companies have the resources to do that, and they have the motivation to keep their version compatible (and thus get to call it "java" instead of "j" or whatever).


You would be surprised at how small a company can be and still have a certified Java implementation. Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Cloudy) Comments http://osnews.com/thread?218337 http://osnews.com/thread?218337 > anyone who makes an implementation that's incompatible enough
> not to pass the certification test doesn't get to call it Java.

That doesn't matter since most people don't care whether it says "java" or "java compatible". Heck, most wouldn't notice the difference in the first place.

> You would be surprised at how small a company can be and still
> have a certified Java implementation.

It doesn't matter if the company is big or small, only that it has invested enough to have the proper motivation to pass the standard java TCK. Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (msundman) Comments