I like Mr. Wall w/o the filters, and listening to this episode has finally got me around to getting this off of my chest. Maybe the rest of the world will curse him for winding me up, but I'd like to say thanks.
What I find disturbing is the fracturing of the Java runtime and language features. Some features and runtime classes aren't available when its compiled down to Javascript. A disjoint set of things is unavailable in Android, and yet another different set of things is not available in the app engine. The Dalvik (sp?) VM, "Its Java source code that compiles down to a load of horse manure wrapped in legalese." e.g. I have my nice JavaFX binaries. They even ran in the outdated 1.5 JVM on my mac. Can I pop it on my G1 and see how it looks there? No. Yes, I am oversimplifying it. For example, I couldn't just pop them onto a Linux box and expect them to work until a few weeks ago, however, most of it did work, so the option existed. A few months ago I had to "port" a medium sized swing application to Linux. I unzipped the jars, changed some paths in the property file, zipped them back up again and it ran perfectly. These are examples what makes the Java platform so great, and this is what Google wants you to forget about and lock you in to their tools and their services. The app engine is probably the worst, because its really nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at vendor lock-in. Correct me if I'm wrong, the example that I recall is ImageIO. The libraries do not exist in the GAE environment, but Google does have their own handy APIs to do what you need. Run away. Will I ever need something like Google App Engine? Maybe, maybe not. I think though that if I did, I'd give serious consideration into doing the extra work that it would require to make it run in an environment that didn't lock me in (e.g. Amazon's EC2). Especially if I were one of those small companies starting something new. If you outsource for your technical talent and depend on Google's proprietary API's in GAE, then Google will have a huge advantage over you if they change their terms. You never want a vendor to have that sort of advantage over you. On Jun 28, 11:26 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's all about the lowest common denominator, which is what Google > really gets. They don't care about Java in the same passionate/ > religious way as i.e. Dick, to them it's just a tool and a marked to > be harvested. That was one of the most interesting parts of the latest > podcast, Dick putting Carl in the "hot chair". I've criticized the > Java Posse in the past for seeking the path of least resistance and > favouring other things over actual engineering/technology aspects, but > this conversation I thought was superb! > > I know there's no chance in he// that will happen, but another > enlightening interview could be with Androids Dan Bornstein. Again, > forgetting about religion and focusing on engineering, I would love to > know how come Mono did not look interesting to them when it provides a > lot of free machinery and > performance:http://www.koushikdutta.com/2009/01/dalvik-vs-mono.html > (And no, there's no patent patent issue here, just as Android isn't > currently using Swing, a Mono version would not use WinForms so > Microsoft couldn't do squad if they wanted to.) > > All of Google's fancy interactive stuff runs on the iPhone and Android > devices - meanwhile Flash and JavaFX does not (well ok, Flash does > but currently only released for the Hero). And giant hack or not, GWT > makes the users as well as developers happy. The same argument goes > for Android, App Engine etc. And at the end of the that day, isn't > that all that really matters? > > /Casper > > On 28 Jun., 16:33, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: > > > tronda wrote: > > > I think the main reason is what Carl said. With HTML 5 Google is able > > > to drive the standard. With JavaFX/Applet/JavaPlugin this isn't the > > > case. Flash the same. The web standards has served Google good in the > > > past and I think this will be able to serve Google good in the future. > > > I also think it is important to get momentum behind HTML 5 and Google > > > is probably pushing it to avoid having developers turning to Flash/ > > > JavaFX/Silverlight as a solution for their highly interactive content. > > > I consider this a good thing. > > > While I'd consider pushing developers away from Silverlight a good > > thing, I can't consider architecting with any substantive piece of code > > in JavaScript a good thing -- and interactive HTML == JavaScript in most > > any real case. > > > If you have a tiny client UI, fine, but as things grow JavaScript > > becomes a really nasty technology. > > > GWT is helpful in getting you around this -- until you hit the wall. > > > Java and JavaFX are far more attractive in this regard. > > > -- > > Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
