> What's the point of open specs in this point without an open > implementation? You don't save a lot of time and money just out of open > specs if you have to reimplement everything. And there should be Mono, in > theory. As they bought a company that was developing the ancestor of > Dalvik, they could have done the same for C#. >
The point of an open spec is to offer a standard everybody is free to use. Without standards, it's pretty hard to coordinate and cooperate across system boundaries. As such, a language is no different from a protocol. JavaScript is another example of an open standard under Ecma (why it's also called EcmaScript), which allows many different browsers and none of which has to pay licence fees to NetScape. Don't get me wrong here, I think it's great to have a de-facto implementation (OpenJDK) of the JSE standard, but I think it's a crying shame you alternatives are forced out (Apache Harmony) since I have a preference for open standards allowing for many different implementations. C# (Ecma-334) has .NET/CLR (Microsoft propriatary) Rotor (Microsoft Shared Source), Mono (open-source), dotGNU (open-source, dead). > The core technologies. Certainly I'm not talking of running Android on > > JME. With a business collaboration, they could have defined Android as a > fourth edition of Java. Note that I'm not blaming exclusively Google for > not making the deal. We don't know details, and it's certainly possible > that Sun missed a big opportunity: Android was clearly the JME killer, JME > > was one of the most profitable parts of JAva for Sun and they weren't > smart enough to understand that JME was going to die because of its own > bureaucracy and the flawed relationship with phone manufacturer. > Agreed. > No, no, I'm implying that Google thinks that Java, licensing apart, is > > excellent both on the VM concept and the language aspect, which counters > all the usual Java bashing arguments around. > > Sorry, but "the VM concept" is just too weak a point for me in a technical discussion. There are obviously a lot of excellent things within the JVM, but neither you nor me, knows what drawbacks and advantages they would've made as the core of Android - it remains a silly theoretical discussion revolving around beliefs and feelings rather than objective comparative analysis. We have different views on this matter, I'm convinced Google first and foremost saw a community associated with a "good enough" language, rather than anything technically superior from Sun. > Sorry, you don't want to see the point. The cited facts proved that Page > > and Google engineering thought that Java is an excellent technology. Since > > they are top level professionals, this is a technological argument. > Otherwise, you must imply that they are not so competent. I don't see any > third option here. > Sure there is, I just explained it a few times. It's the same reason you and I are arguing in English here; it's not that the English language is particular superior or that we couldn't invent a better one, it's the fact that it allows a Dane and an Italian to readily communicate. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/8jjDD-AfwN4J. 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.
