Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Java EE

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: Java EE

#11

Post by liesmarketing »

staticelf wrote: post #10
bad_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non- open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open . Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensi…

> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. I just think you're simply underestimating how many people actually like .net and spreads the love by free will. :)

they probably shouldn't lie in such transparent ways, then

Re: Java EE

#12

Post by runako »

nxc18 wrote: post #3

How is this just happening now? Java is super popular in the open source and academic communities, but C# has been ahead of them since its start with an open specification, open implementations, and for the past few years, a full-throttle open source effort. What's going on?

> Java is super popular in the open source and academic communities

Don't forget the business community. To a first order approximation, most programmers who get paid to write code work in either C#/.NET or Java. Everything else is a relatively small minority of paid development work.

Re: Java EE

#13

Post by hele7 »

bad_user wrote: post #8
nxc18 wrote: post #3

How is this just happening now? Java is super popular in the open source and academic communities, but C# has been ahead of them since its start with an open specification, open implementations, and for the past few years, a full-throttle open source effort. What's going on?

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non- open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open . Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensi…

> OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later.

You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort, while .NET Core is maintained primarily by Microsoft themselves. The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. Mono in turn had it's initial release in June 30, 2004, which is _13 years ago_, and 3 years before OpenJDK itself.

Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core. One might even argue that Oracle only did so _because_ of .NET Core.

I'll note that I'm replying because I'm getting tired of Oracle's marketing campaigns on this forum.

Re: Java EE

#14

Post by hele7 »

liesmarketing wrote: post #11
staticelf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. I just think you're simply underestimating how many people actually like .net and spreads the love by free will. :)

they probably shouldn't lie in such transparent ways, then

Do you have sufficient proof to back your argument?

Further, can you prove that they lie any more than others?

Re: Java EE

#15

Post by 0xbear »

bad_user wrote: post #8
nxc18 wrote: post #3

How is this just happening now? Java is super popular in the open source and academic communities, but C# has been ahead of them since its start with an open specification, open implementations, and for the past few years, a full-throttle open source effort. What's going on?

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non- open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open . Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensi…

.NET is far beyond Java as a platform for building languages though, and it's been that way right from the start. Reified generics, value types, structs, unsigned integer type support, intermediate language actually optimized for compilation. It's pretty nice.

For some reason Java people have a near allergic reaction to it though.

Re: Java EE

#16

Post by g051051 »

nxc18 wrote: post #3

How is this just happening now? Java is super popular in the open source and academic communities, but C# has been ahead of them since its start with an open specification, open implementations, and for the past few years, a full-throttle open source effort. What's going on?

You're mistaking Microsoft's purely reactive strategy to something like real planning and commitment to open source. MSFT has been pushing into that area (sort of) recently because they kept getting their lunch stolen by all of the open source technologies out there.

Do you think it was anything but the most incredible terror and desperation that drove them to add a Linux subsystem to Windows? To open source their "crown jewel" of .NET? To support Linux on Azure? To make Visual Studio almost entirely free? To adopt Electron as the base for VS Code? To ditch TFS for GitHub?

Edit: Corrected to be more precise Chromium vs. Electron.

Re: Java EE

#17

Post by myth_drannon »

Looking at the people who belong to this organization, I get the feeling that the majority of the JavaEE development was outsourced to India.

Re: Java EE

#18

Post by dtech »

hele7 wrote: post #13
bad_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non- open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open . Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensi…

> OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later. You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort, while .NET Core is maintained primarily by Microsoft themselves. The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. Mono in turn h…

> You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort

> The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono.

This is disingenuous at best. OpenJDK was started with a huge codebase from the existing Sun JDK at the time, similar to how .Net core was started with with a Microsoft codebase.

Meanwhile Mono had to be written from scratch and was a far cry from being somewhat compatible for years after it started (e.g. capable of running a Visual Studio compiled .NET GUI program)

> Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core

I'm not sure what you mean by "open source Java" in this context. The Java Community Process was started in 1998, and as said OpenJDK started in 2007. Java EE being open sourced like now would be much more comparable to Microsoft releasing something like Windows Presentation Foundation as open source, as it's a oft-used part of .NET but not part of the language per se.

Re: Java EE

#20

Post by jsiepkes »

hele7 wrote: post #13
bad_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non- open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open . Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensi…

> OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later. You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort, while .NET Core is maintained primarily by Microsoft themselves. The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. Mono in turn h…

If you want to take mono into account as the first free .net implementation you should take GCJ into account as free Java implementation. GCJ was started in 1998....
Post reply on HN