Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:21 UTC
Java IBM has begun participating in open-source Java project Harmony and intends to contribute code to the initiative, according to a Big Blue executive.
Thread beginning with comment 7569
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Your problem is that you're thinking in the server space where Java has been established for quite a while. But Java is basically non-existant on the any desktop - mostly because of Sun's mixed messages and efforts towards the desktop over the years.

In the Linux/Unix arena the desktop is irrelevant. The money is in Java application servers. You've been swallowing too much of this desktop crap from the money people.

Look at where the market actually is.

Now we know that the vast majority of programming in windows will be done in .NET in the future

Not on Unix/Linux they won't. This isn't about Windows.

And the fact remains that Java is just another one of numerous frameworks and languages for web applications. Ruby on Rails, Zope (Python), PHP that IBM is investing in

Java is not just another framework. It is the technology used for application servers in companies. Ruby and PHP simply are not used for it, although there is a large amount of infrastructure on the web around it.

How many sites do you see running ASP.Net on Unix/Linux compared to PHP, Java and all the momentum now behind Ruby? None, that's how many. Does ASP.Net and Mono have the momentum and interest Ruby has? No.

Again, in terms of IBM, BEA and other companies looking to get involbed in this, look at where the market and the money is. They're either Java companies, or they are companies looking to get into the Java world e.g. Red Hat.

So you can pooh-pooh Mono all you want, but just the mere fact that windows is going almost all .NET for future programming means that Mono will be a player, one way or another.

This isn't about Windows, and quite frankly, in the Unix/Linux world no one gives a toss what programming technology Microsoft now uses for it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Why not Mono?
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 12:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not Mono?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

...too much of this desktop crap from the money people.

That should read from the Mono people (slow day today). Same difference though.

Reply Parent Score: 1