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

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Java EE

#21

Post by filomeno »

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…

No, you're wrong. You can compare Mono to GNU Classpath (1998) and the like. But OpenJDK was backed by Sun. They started releasing the source code in 2007. So it's 10 years ago.

You can read it all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK

Re: Java EE

#22

Post by geodel »

myth_drannon wrote: post #17

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

Isn't the whole J2EE business evolved for outsourcing IT work?

Re: Java EE

#23

Post by pjmlp »

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…

OpenJDK would have died already if it wasn't for the Sun devs, nowadays Oracle, being the majority of contributors.

Re: Java EE

#24

Post by geodel »

By this Oracle now admits in times of Cloud, docker containers etc Java EE is relic of past and not of much relevance. Surprisingly though, Spring with its habit of adding a thick layer of crap over any technology is doing okay and lot of people seem to like it.

Re: Java EE

#25

Post by pjmlp »

0xbear wrote: post #15
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…

.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.

Sun had an allergic reaction to it.

Oracle has improved it quite a bit and all those features are being worked on for Java 10.

Re: Java EE

#26

Post by pkolaczk »

0xbear wrote: post #15
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…

.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.

Reified generics are more of a problem than a solution for language creators. .NET generics are too weak to be the base for languages with really powerful type systems like Scala or Haskell. Therefore implementing Scala on .NET required to use erasure and turned out to be more complex than in Java, which supports erasure "natively".

Re: Java EE

#27

Post by pjmlp »

g051051 wrote: post #16
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 "c…

As much as I like .NET, the truth is that they are loosing mindshare among new generations.

"Microsoft’s Open Source Developer Journey"

https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Visual-Studio/Live-2017/Key...

Re: Java EE

#28

Post by vertex-four »

g051051 wrote: post #16
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 "c…

> To adopt Chromium as the base for VS Code?

Ehh, using Electron to write a relatively lightweight wrapper for Monaco (the editor component that was developed for an entirely different product) was an obvious technical choice if you were no longer restricted to only using Microsoft technologies. There's not a reasonable/supported alternative to Electron within Microsoft.

Re: Java EE

#29

Post by dtech »

0xbear wrote: post #15
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…

.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.

Yep, the CLR/VM is a much better target for languages and C# fixes a lot of Java's mistakes.

It's such a shame that Microsoft until recently kept it so tightly controlled and Windows only. If that hadn't been the case the ecosystem (libraries and languages) might have been a lot more up to par when compared to the JVM ecosystem.

Re: Java EE

#30

Post by dtech »

pkolaczk wrote: post #26
0xbear wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.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.

Reified generics are more of a problem than a solution for language creators. .NET generics are too weak to be the base for languages with really powerful type systems like Scala or Haskell. Therefore implementing Scala on .NET required to use erasure and turned out to be more complex than in Java, which supports erasure "natively".

They might make languages harder to implement, but on this point C# definitely wins over Java/Scala for programmers.

I cringe a little when I need to write the occasional `def foo[T](list: List[T])(implicit tag: ClassTag[T])` in Scala.

Post reply on HN