Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 24th Sep 2010 22:56 UTC
Java Oracle has made some decisions about Java: in order to release JDK 7 in the middle of next year, they have decided to change priorities and specifically, postpone three features: Jigsaw, Lambda and Coin.
Thread beginning with comment 442703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: No thanks to Java
by nt_jerkface on Sat 25th Sep 2010 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks to Java"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

This lawsuit ended in Microsoft not being allowed to use Java anymore (ie. stop trying to hijack Java with its J++ 'implementation').


What is rarely mentioned is that Java looked and ran like garbage in Windows.

Developers hated how Java looked in Windows thanks to the VM and non-native controls.

Java was really sunk on the desktop thanks to Sun's arrogance. I remember seeing a thread where a developer complained that clients did not like how Java fonts looked in Windows and a Sun rep told him to suggest an OS change. Java would have died on the desktop even if .net was never created. Developers hated how Sun ignored their needs, some alternative framework would have been created out of necessity.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: No thanks to Java
by sorpigal on Mon 27th Sep 2010 12:20 in reply to "RE[2]: No thanks to Java"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Developers hated how Java looked in Windows thanks to the VM and non-native controls.

And developers, and users, still hate how non-native controls look on any platform. Java as a desktop app language has always been hindered by the "Java is ugly" problem, meaning non-native controls look and act out of place. The primary improvement of .net over Java on Windows is that .net programs *look* and *act* native, which means they are native.

I admire that Sun wanted to strictly enforce portability, and thus required No External Dependencies Whatsoever, but this is a case where they took this ideal to a detrimental extreme. You can be portable and still adapt to the local system! As long as the code will run on both systems it really doesn't matter that it takes advantage of native integration on one and not another, or due to that integration looks and acts a little differently. Take firefox as an example: it's cross-platform *and* tries to look native, and largely succeeds. It may take a lot of platform specific code but the results are worth it (and Java could have chucked that code in a library where most developers would never have to care).

Reply Parent Score: 3