A note on this video from the respected James Gosling, is that it is from 2010, when Oracle was new to the Java stewardship ecosystem. The company came a long since. I'm not saying everything is perfect. But I doubt that a product such as the JVM will be as good without a company guidance.
The module system is interesting and is good thing regardless of the Oracle features. Having AWT classes for a server always annoyed me, for IoT as well. I'm really excited about Java 9. -- Brice On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: > >> @Edward Agreed JVM is awesome and it is a work of many smart people and >> this is obvious if one looks into the JDK code. But given Oracle history of >> business practices and other decisions it is a bit hard to convince oneself >> that everything is going to be OK and that they actually care about open >> source. Even the module system that they are trying to come up with is >> something that motivated by the problem they have faced internally. >> >> To reiterate again just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/ >> watch?v=9ei-rbULWoA >> >> My statements are not solely based on this video but I certainly would >> give good weight for James Gosling. >> >> I tend to think that Oracle has not closed Java because they know that >> cant get money from users because these days not many people are willing to >> pay even for distributed databases so I don't think anyone would pay for >> programming language. In short, Let me end by saying Oracle just has lot of >> self interest but I really hope that I am wrong since I am a big fan of JVM. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Java 9 Module system looks really interesting. I would be very curious >>>> to see how Cassandra would leverage that. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would agree with Eric with his following statement. In fact, I was >>>>> trying to say the same thing. >>>>> >>>>> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is >>>>> a >>>>> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on >>>>> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an >>>>> implicit dependency)." >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Brice Dutheil < >>>>> brice.duth...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clickbait imho. Search ‘The Register’ in this wikipedia page >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media> >>>>>> >>>>>> @Ben Manes >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed, OpenJDK and Oracle JDK are now pretty close, but there is >>>>>> still some differences in the VM code and third party dependencies like >>>>>> security libraries. Maybe that’s fine for some productions, but maybe not >>>>>> for everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also another thing, while OpenJDK source is available to all, I don’t >>>>>> think all OpenJDK builds have been certified with the TCK. For example >>>>>> the >>>>>> Zulu OpenJDK is, as Azul have access to the TCK and certifies >>>>>> <https://www.azul.com/products/zulu/> the builds. Another example >>>>>> OpenJDK build installed on RHEL is certified >>>>>> <https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013>. Canonical probably is >>>>>> running TCK comliance tests as well on thei OpenJDK 8 since they are >>>>>> listed >>>>>> on the signatories >>>>>> <http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html> >>>>>> but not sure as I couldn’t find evidence on this; on this signatories >>>>>> list >>>>>> again there’s an individual – Emmanuel Bourg – who is related to >>>>>> Debian <https://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2015/01/msg00015.html> ( >>>>>> linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ebourg>), but not sure again >>>>>> the TCK is passed for each build. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bad OpenJDK intermediary builds, i.e without TCK compliance tests, is >>>>>> a reality >>>>>> <https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/commit/00a9c5c080f2a5fd1510bc0716db7afe06cbd017> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> While the situation has enhanced over the past months I’ll still >>>>>> double check before using any OpenJDK builds. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Brice >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Voytek Jarnot < >>>>>> voytek.jar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Reading that article the only conclusion I can reach (unless I'm >>>>>>> misreading) is that all the stuff that was never free is still not free >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> the change is that Oracle may actually be interested in the fact that >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> are using non-free products for free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pretty much a non-story, it seems like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Kant Kodali <k...@peernova.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at this http://www.theregister.co >>>>>>>> .uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java_users_non_compliance/?mt= >>>>>>>> 1481919461669 I don't know why Cassandra recommends Oracle JVM? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JVM is a great piece of software but I would like to stay away from >>>>>>>> Oracle as much as possible. Oracle is just horrible the way they are >>>>>>>> dealing with Java in General. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> "I don't really have any opinions on Oracle per say, but Cassandra is a >>> Free Software project and I would prefer that we not depend on >>> commercial software, (and that's kind of what we have here, an >>> implicit dependency)." >>> >>> We are a bit loose here with terms "free" and "commercial". The oracle >>> JVM is open source, it is free to use and the trademark is owned by a >>> company. >>> >>> That is not much different then using a tool for cassandra like a driver >>> hosted on github but made my a company. >>> >>> The thing about a JVM is that like a kernel you want really smart >>> dedicated people working on it. Oracle has moved the JVM forward since >>> taking over sun. You can not just manage a JVM like say the freebsd port of >>> x maintained by 3 part time dudes that all get paid to do something else. >>> >> >> > Many of the modern languages are "propped up" by commercial entities. > > Microsoft and c#(j++, .net, etc ) > Google and go > Google and andriod (j++--) > Apple and swift > > The open initiatives have there own set of problems. Mainly adoption and > leadership, for example compare c# with rust or scala. > > No one pays for the language directly you pay for the eco-system and tools > around it. I see JVM without a large entity like sun/oracle to be a strange > beast. No large entity to sync time and money into things like G1 garbage > collector. > > I could see efforts like lambda's happening more like a scala world, where > you have compatibility issues between 2.9 and 2.10, constant repackaging, > ideological arguments over what is idiomatic. c++ 11,14,17 is a good > example of that. I never seem to have a compiler that can deal with the > syntax in the spec. I am constantly rebuilding a compiler from source to > compile someone else source code that supposedly matching a spec from 5 > years ago. > > > > >
