*>*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.
Here's a third option: this is a legal argument, and the cited facts are the ones which support google's winning the case, regardless of the technological facts. I'm sure I don't have the expertise to judge on the technical details, but I do think this is at least plausible as a third option. Under this scenario, it'd be impossible to accept any of Google's trial arguments as having any implications about Google's beliefs regarding the technology: the only purpose of those statements is to win a trial. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Fabrizio Giudici < fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:42:48 +0200, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > First of all, as brilliant as Page might be, we should >> not necessarily assume he is a VM engineer. Secondly, I think we must >> > > Hey, men, we're talking about a strategic decision for a company. I could > cite a number of CEO of italians corporates that don't have a clue on > strategy, and in fact effects are clear. I don't believe Google it's like > that, since they're going well. But, above all, we're not discussing only > about Page's mind: it was a discussion with some engineers (Page has been > involved in the news because it's negating it was aware of the discussion, > and an email proves it isn't true - but I don't care at all about this > aspect of the matter). > > > So it's possible that Google technically could've used a hybrid of >> Hotspot, >> but that's not the same as saying Dalvik is a workaround of a licensing >> issue or that it doesn't have other merits (I.e. trace-based JIT's and >> registred based VM's are assumed more efficient than method based JIT's >> and >> stack based VM's). >> > > I respect your opinion. But it isn't the opinion of Page since he says > "we'd saved a lot of time and money should have we adopted Sun's > technology". > > > However, the King of Android (Rubin), advised Page way back in 2005 (page >> 22) that C# might be an alternative (which, unlike Java, is open spec >> rather than open source). We can only assume that Lindholm talked Rubin >> out >> > > 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#. > > > of this idea. Perhaps Google feared the prospect of upsetting Microsoft >> greater than over upsetting Sun, although I think the more likely cause is >> Google wanting to bootstrap off the existing Java community, which they >> have traditionally been aligned with, contributed to and hired people >> from. >> > > Well, so we're saying that Java is hugely popular, at the point that it's > the best bootstrapping option. Fair enough for me :-) > > > I'm confused, when you now say "Java", do you then refer to the 3 official >> Sun runtimes (JME/JSE/JEE) or just the language as a medium of expression? >> > > 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. > > > You imply that Google think Java is bad, yet Google based Android on Java >> so I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. I guess maybe you >> mean to say that a subset of the JSE could've been used instead. Perhaps >> you are right, I don't think we will ever find out, since Sun/Oracle have >> shown little interest in creating a modern mobile platform. >> > > 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. > > > Admittedly, I'm having a hard time seeing actual technological arguments >> here. >> > > 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. > > > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it > > -- > 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+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>. > > -- 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.
