Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:17 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Legal Java creator James Gosling: "Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun." Ouch. Also, doesn't jive with Schwartz' comments - might be illustrative of how bad things really were at the once great Sun.
Thread beginning with comment 516414
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by d3vi1
by d3vi1 on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:47 UTC
d3vi1
Member since:
2006-01-28

Fact check:
1) Sun created Java.
2) Java is the most used programming language out there. That also makes it the most missused, but that's not a fault of the programming language.
3) Because of (2), Java suffers for some degree of fragmentation and there is no single and good-enough API for everything, regardless how much they tried. IBM had to be idiots and create SWT when Swing was already available. Sun had to be idiots and make AWT crappy, which led to the creation of both Swing and SWT and the examples can continue.
4) Sun did try to address this and actively pushed a single set of APIs.
5) Sun tried to do the right thing and make Java free software
6) Sun stopped Microsoft from irreparably forking Java into a completely incompatible mess.

Until now, it's clear that Java was too big for Sun to control. They did try nevertheless and did an impressive job in a lot of aspects. Furthermore, I'm quite sympathetic to Sun's position.

Now let's scroll forward to Google. Here comes Google. They look at the landscape and notice the following:
1) There are a lot of Java programmers out there, including for mobile devices.
2) There are no decent (simple, unique, clear, sufficient) APIs in Java that are suitable for a modern Smart Phone.
J2ME (Java 2 Mobile Edition) was already available, but it was designed for classic phones, not really suitable for the new iPhone-like devices. Instead of proposing a new Java initiative that could be called J2SPE (Java 2 Smart Phone Edition) through the appropriate channels (like the JSRs), they decided to fork it.

Now let's look at this from Sun's perspective:
We created this and spent billions and incredible talent to create this. We've made it work in smart-cards, mobile phones, cars, blu-ray players, web browsers, servers, etc.
Now Google comes here and copies most of our work, but in a completely incompatible manner, thus defying the universal principle of Java that we fought to keep.

Given that perspective, I can see how Sun felt screwed over by Google, basically because they were. For PR reasons they didn't act on it, but they should have. Oracle came with some ridiculous statements, but the facts of the case are true. Simply put: they created Java as a universal solution and Google made an incompatible fork, which beats the whole universal solution idea. If Google really had ethics, they would have created their own programming language or used one that is not tied to it's APIs like Java or pushed the android profile and APIs through the JSR and made them part of Java.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by d3vi1
by JAlexoid on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:11 in reply to "Comment by d3vi1"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now let's look at this from Sun's perspective:
We created this and spent billions and incredible talent to create this. We've made it work in smart-cards, mobile phones, cars, blu-ray players, web browsers, servers, etc.

But not smartphones.

Now Google comes here and copies most of our work, but in a completely incompatible manner, thus defying the universal principle of Java that we fought to keep.

Not incompatible, but rather uncontrollable. Android is vastly more compatible with Java(mostly because it's plain Java up to a certain point), than Java RT and Java ME ever were.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by d3vi1
by Delgarde on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:59 in reply to "Comment by d3vi1"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Now Google comes here and copies most of our work, but in a completely incompatible manner, thus defying the universal principle of Java that we fought to keep.


If it was a "completely incompatible manner", we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, the Java language used on Android is 99.99% compatible with the Sun/Oracle version, such that most third party libraries can simply be recompiled to the different bytecode format, no source changes necessary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by d3vi1
by d3vi1 on Tue 1st May 2012 08:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by d3vi1"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

"Now Google comes here and copies most of our work, but in a completely incompatible manner, thus defying the universal principle of Java that we fought to keep.


If it was a "completely incompatible manner", we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, the Java language used on Android is 99.99% compatible with the Sun/Oracle version, such that most third party libraries can simply be recompiled to the different bytecode format, no source changes necessary.
"
Java is a vm bytecode format, a programming language, an API. They kept just the programming language. I agree that a new API would have been necessary, but that could have been made under the big Java umbrella.

Reply Parent Score: 1