Hi Dick,
Just wanted to say publicly that I checked both the pending and
spam sections of Blogger's comments when Cedric mentioned it to me
yesterday and I didn't find any post from you. What happened? Sadly,
I've no idea. I can happily say that I've never censored an opinion on
my blog and the
credibility in these matters
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller).
I've seen him harshly criticizing Groklaw and 'PJ' a few times which may
explain why these two sites don't like each other very much :)
BoD
On 06/09/2011 11:31 PM, JodaStephen wrote:
I should point out
Yes, Oracle cannot give out a TCK to all open source (ie. Apache).
Because doing so would shoot a big hole in their lawsuit against
Google.
Stephen
On Jun 9, 3:29 pm, paul.leb...@gmail.com paul.leb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Never mind. I took that sentence as meaning *any* open source
implementation
I should point out that the Florian Mueller, author of that piece, is
getting a reputation as saying headline grabbing things rather than
considered thoughtful things.
Groklaw is much more reliable on the real legal issues, and a
recommended read if you come across a Mueller piece:
My objection to checked exceptions is I suspect slightly different to
some.
In theory, they are a great idea. An extension to the static type
system (as such, its surprising that all exceptions in Scala aren't
checked!). The theory is that you write your code and force the user
of your API to
On Mar 25, 7:31 pm, phil swenson phil.swen...@gmail.com wrote:
Has Sun/Oracle ever seriously considered doing anything about the Exception
debacle? I submitted a request a ways back and it got shot down very
quickly. I kind of think we're just stuck with Checked Exceptions as long
as Java
On Nov 10, 10:20 am, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
wrote:
Well, the point is: Apache was right in that try, but _they lose_. My
point is not that one should not oppose to Sun/Oracle policies, but that
one should do in a constructive way. What did ASF get in a few years of
was at Apache and was a copy then it breached the rules laid down:
http://harmony.apache.org/get-involved.html , something that would be
very disappointing
Stephen
On Oct 29, 12:52 am, JodaStephen scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
This class appears to be an Android class, NOT a Harmony/Apache class
Despite the best efforts with the Mason Street tent, the three hotel
system just doesn't work. Too much time is spent walking between
sessions, getting lost, not meeting people, and generally being
frustrated.
It would be far better to split the developers from the main OpenWorld
- either in a
As one of multiple independent inventors of the diamond operator, I
can give some insight.
Fundamentally, changes in Java are about working out what is deemed to
be an acceptable change for Java developers, and what is acceptably in
the Java style. Both of these are subjective.
In the initial
This statement is the standard holding statement from Sun/Oracle
engineers. All the evidence is that the engineers want a Java SE JSR.
However, nothing has changed in the JCP, management or higher
political world to make this possible. Hence, the key word of the
quote is intent.
Stephen
On Sep
A couple of factual JCP points in response to the original post.
1) The Sun and Oracle posts on the JCP combined with the merger.
Oracle doesn't have two seats. (This occurred previously when they
bought BEA).
2) The JCP is simply a process administered by a department of Oracle.
Oracle can
BTW, as a parallel to this Scala discussion, consider generics in
Java. I will argue that the total number of people that *fully*
understand generics, to the point at which they can explain every
aspect of syntax they see, write any valid API and never have to
consult the FAQ
The Fantom BNF grammer is 144 lines http://fantom.org/doc/docLang/Grammar.html
- Java: 368 lines
- Scala: 257 lines (EBNF)
- Fantom: 144 lines (BNF)
However, these numbers need normalizing before comparison, as Fantom's
is written in a more compact style than Scala.
As Charles says, grammer
On Aug 7, 11:32 am, Ben Schulz ya...@gmx.net wrote:
On the plus side one does not have to be a rocket scientist to
read and write Java code, but when one's intuition of what is right
gets confounded, i.e. one stumbles over a Java puzzler, things get
hairy.
I don't think there is disagreement
Excellentt work. I believe that the grammer size comparison is a much
more reasonable than spec pages. I'd also say that a reduction in
grammer size of 30% intuitively sounds about right.
More broadly, I would argue that there is a general acceptance that
any language beyond Java will not have
Kevin Wright is fond of repeating:
Java (3rd Edition): 649 pages, 7932 KB
Scala (current in trunk): 191 pages, 1312 KB
therefore Scala is less complex.
But has anyone actually analysed the specs in detail?
In code coverage terms, how many distinct code paths are there in
each spec. That is
On Dec 2, 4:50 pm, Alexey inline_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hm... this is interesting. Is java.util.Date mutable? If one avoids
deprecated method calls, it is not and I've been treating it as such
for a couple years now. The fact that Sun has not yanked those horrid
deprecated API is another
On Oct 1, 9:45 pm, Mark Derricutt m...@talios.com wrote:
My understanding of the process if that in order for a JSR to be filed you
need a spec, and an initial working implementation/proof of concept (in
general), which is why things like JPA/JPA2 came out of hibernate,
joda-time's jsr etc.
Noop is a side-project from a collection of like-minded developers
and contributers (listed at the side). We hail from several companies,
including (but not limited to) Google.
Looks like bad journalism at work here. This is just another language.
It happens to be hosted at Google Code and have
Its fascinating that amongst all the really great features (and ease
of use) that Fan has, its operator overloading that has been picked on
here. Anyway, Fan and Scala have different approaches to operator
overloading.
Scala, IIUC, allows virtually any symbol to be a method name, and for
Making Enum implement Comparable by default was a mistake in the
original design process, which has had negative consequences (you
should have had to write implements Comparable if you wanted it).
But, since all Enums do implement Comparable, then I would agree that
EnumSet should probably
On Apr 7, 11:36 pm, markmac mark.macum...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a 'JDK 7' or only an 'Open JDK 7'? Are they one in the same
at this point in time? If there is currently only an 'Open JDK 7',
thats fine, I understand completely, but if the 'JDK 7' exists, what
the heck is it?
Open JDK 7
On Apr 7, 2:51 am, Dick Wall dickw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like this would be something good to set up for JavaOne, since
that is just around the corner and I think a debate like this would go
much better face to face.
I won't be at JavaOne, but I suspect Geir will be.
Stephen
On Apr 7, 10:15 am, Martin OConnor marti...@gmail.com wrote:
Therefore, it follows that Sun has licensed the JCK to the OpenJDK
project without a FOU restriction, because the GPL explicitly forbids
such a restriction.
Yes. Sun has a dedicated license programme for code that is solely for
GPL
On Apr 7, 12:59 pm, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
In Sun's case with the JDK, however, the Apache license is not a fine thing.
They put untold amounts of engineering work into the JDK and TCK -- and
continue to do so. How can anyone expect them to make the TCK freely
available to open
On Apr 7, 6:04 pm, Martin OConnor marti...@gmail.com wrote:
Could it be possible that Sun's line of thinking might be release an
unencumbered TCK to Apache for
Java SE 7, when it finally becomes specified. This TCK would likely be
built from the ground up to address the weaknesses in the TCK
On Apr 7, 5:12 pm, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
I wonder if the real issue here is that Sun's TCK is really too weak to
ensure adequate compatibility of a completely disparate implementations
and that Sun has only recently discovered that allowing implementations
that didn't start with
On Apr 6, 9:25 am, Martin OConnor marti...@gmail.com wrote:
My one outstanding question is the following
Has any OpenJDK build yet passed the TCK(JCK) ?
Yes. Open JDK 6 has passed the Java SE 6 specification:
JDK 6 Project
The primary goal of this project is to produce an open-source
For info of anyone reading - robogeek is http://weblogs.java.net/blog/robogeek/
- David Herron has worked for 7 years in the J2SE Quality Engineering
team. He has developed test suites and GUI test automation tools.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
To the Posse (replying to the episode),
This is about the difference between an open specification and and
open source implementation. The two things are different.
Sun has successfully created OpenJDK, an open source project under the
GPL license. This is being run in a pretty open manner and
On Mar 28, 6:58 am, Peter Becker peter.becker...@gmail.com wrote:
Because not having that FOU clause would mean someone could take a
stripped-down version of J2SE and use it in areas where J2ME resides
nowadays.
If someone strips down J2SE using Harmony as a base, then the result
is not a
On Mar 28, 1:03 pm, Weiqi Gao weiqi...@gmail.com wrote:
The Free Software Foundation releases a Free Software version of Java
implementation as part of their GCC product. They've been doing so for
years and years. I don't believe their implementation passes the TCK.
I don't believe they
and they go rant against anything that doesn't use OSGi and could
perhaps potentially use it. This is *not* a good way to advocate a
technology.
On Mar 25, 5:37 pm, JodaStephen jodastep...@googlemail.com wrote:
Joshua Marinacci said
Jigsaw is the modularity planned
On Mar 27, 2:01 am, Michael Neale michael.ne...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is a deliberately controversial and cheap headline that
stephen used to grab attention to an issue.
I originally was giong to use Java 7 is dead but chose not to. I
think my final choice has had the desired impact of
On Mar 27, 11:31 pm, Neal Gafter neal.gaf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 6:17 am, JodaStephen jodastep...@googlemail.com wrote:
2006.10.24 - 7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open
source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible
open source implementations
Joshua Marinacci said
Jigsaw is the modularity planned to be built into the JDK. It's
purpose in life is to make the JRE modular. No other modules system,
including OSGI, has the ability to do that because they simply can't
work at a low enough level to make things work (such as JVM changes).
The 'self type' proposal for Java is what is needed here, not method
chaining:
public class Base {
public This setBaseStuff() { /* ... */ return this; }
}
public class Sub extends Base {
public This setSubStuff() { /* ... */ return this; }
}
The 'This' (or 'this') used as a return
On Jan 19, 10:25 am, Pete F google_user_r...@spatialmedia.com wrote:
By contrast -Fan, seems like a nice tasteful modern language -but
it doesn't push any boundaries now does it? Java programmers don't
*need* to know about Fan.
Fan has no shared mutable state and built in immutable
Phil,
Sun and the JCP aren't directly interested in new ideas to change the
Java language. Fundamentally they already know all the ideas. It can
be worthwhile writing them up semi-formally (if you look at my specs
they are not monster) and changing the compiler to match. See the
Kijaro project if
40 matches
Mail list logo
