I very much like where this thread is headed. Having viable options with Java that Oracle can not touch sounds like a win for the community. There is a lot of value in those libraries that can be leveraged by a developer. That makes them productive and of benefit to a company. If all we have to do is change the underlying VM to something that is safe from Oracle, then so be it. I'm sure that VM would get a lot more attention from the community to make it great for production use.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com>wrote: > Funny really, in OS design the small core, big libs approach has long been > preferred. > > The windows NT MicroKernel dates back to 1993 > The original Unix Kernel, 1973 > > In programming languages, it's not so clear-cut. LISP dates back to 1958, > and even then you could define your own control constructs within the > language - the actual spec is VERY small. > > C++ and derivatives (including Java, C#) broke from this, with higher-level > constructs such as `for`, `switch` and `while` being deeply embedded at the > library level and in the VM. Clojure, Scala and F# are once again pulling > the pendulum back again to the small kernel, big libs idea (working with the > VM as necessary), and LLVM is doing the same sort of thing at a lower level. > For example, tail-call optimisation against the JVM is currently achieved > through a technique known as "trampolining" ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_recursion#Implementation_methods) > > So perhaps with the shifting trends in languages, a lighter weight VM > really is the right way to go, especially if VMKit & co. can be used to > allow us to get at all those juicy open-source libs... > > > > > On 31 August 2010 13:25, Miroslav Pokorny <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The reason Java became the most popular platform on the planet is because >> of all the oss libraries. Nothing out there beats or even comes close in >> comparison. Good luck with such a richness of choice and quality in dotnet >> land. Maybe java is not quite as fancy as c# but in the end we are all most >> of the time just the guy who adds glue between one library and something >> else. Maybe Java is a bit more verbose or not as elegant...but in the end >> that does not matter, because what we lose in elegance and language features >> is more than offseted by magnitudes with oss. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > mail/google talk: kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com > wave: kev.lee.wri...@googlewave.com > skype: kev.lee.wright > twitter: @thecoda > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Robert Casto www.robertcasto.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@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.
