Java as we know it is over. Time to fork? • Hacker News Board

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#21

Post by keyist » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 5:25 PM UTC

I'm surprised that IcedTea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icedtea ) has not been mentioned yet.

From the link:

"On June 2008, it was announced that IcedTea6 (as the packaged version of OpenJDK on Fedora 9) has passed the Technology Compatibility Kit tests and can claim to be a fully compatible Java 6 implementation."

I'm not a Java developer -- is there something about the project that makes it less appealing than a fork from scratch?

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#22

Post by TwoSheds » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 5:36 PM UTC

retroryan wrote: post #18

Why fork? Just go with Scala! http://www.scala-lang.org/

Scala needs the JVM (well, at least it's main implementation does).

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#23

Post by davidw » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 5:52 PM UTC

Apache Harmony is something to look at, although of course the Oracle/Android patent suit seems like it might have implications for Harmony.

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#24

Post by j_baker » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 5:59 PM UTC

keyist wrote: post #21

I'm surprised that IcedTea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icedtea ) has not been mentioned yet. From the link: "On June 2008, it was announced that IcedTea6 (as the packaged version of OpenJDK on Fedora 9) has passed the Technology Compatibility Kit tests and can claim to be a fully compatible Java 6 implementation." I'm not a Java developer -- is there something about the project that makes it less appealing than a…

My personal anecdotal experience from using it on Ubuntu is that Iced Tea isn't as reliable or compatible with Java code as the Sun java. Maybe that's changed recently?

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#25

Post by whatajoke » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:48 PM UTC

keyist wrote: post #21

I'm surprised that IcedTea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icedtea ) has not been mentioned yet. From the link: "On June 2008, it was announced that IcedTea6 (as the packaged version of OpenJDK on Fedora 9) has passed the Technology Compatibility Kit tests and can claim to be a fully compatible Java 6 implementation." I'm not a Java developer -- is there something about the project that makes it less appealing than a…

It also has multiple backends. I think a debian dev had coded a llvm backend for it. And a cambridge student coded an ARM backend.

Edit : grammar. Also forgot to mention that the ARM backend run on n900, my precious.

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#26

Post by lukev » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:48 PM UTC

Time to fork? Yes.

Practical to fork? I hope so, but the pessimist in me doubts it.

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#27

Post by lhnn » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:50 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #20

rwl wrote: post #15

Wouldn't a fork be running smack into a patent suit? I confess to not understanding the Java ecosystem at all , but I do know that Oracle just sued Google over their alternative Java implementation...how could a fork avoid this?

If you start with existing GPL code from Oracle, then you have an implicit patent license. But your code has to be under the GPL. If you meet the "Technology Compatibility Kit", then you're an official Java and have a license. Unfortunately Sun was not in the habit of giving access to the TCK to people who were doing things they did not like with Java, and there is no reason to believe that Oracle will be more genero…

So implementing the JVM under the GPL is legal and patent free? A group of companies could get behind an independent JVM already in progress, refine it and back it, without Oracle interference?

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#28

Post by technomancy » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:51 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #24

keyist wrote: post #21

I'm surprised that IcedTea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icedtea ) has not been mentioned yet. From the link: "On June 2008, it was announced that IcedTea6 (as the packaged version of OpenJDK on Fedora 9) has passed the Technology Compatibility Kit tests and can claim to be a fully compatible Java 6 implementation." I'm not a Java developer -- is there something about the project that makes it less appealing than a…

My personal anecdotal experience from using it on Ubuntu is that Iced Tea isn't as reliable or compatible with Java code as the Sun java. Maybe that's changed recently?

Definitely not true in my experience. The only difference I've noticed is that the Sun one forces you to manually download some jars in order to get strong crypto because of some outdated US legal BS, while openJDK bundles them.

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#29

Post by whatajoke » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:51 PM UTC

ShabbyDoo wrote: post #14

strebler wrote: post #7

Can't we just get IBM to make J9 free & open? Last I checked, they supported more OSes than Sun did and the VM was pretty speedy too.

I wonder how encumbered it is with Oracle contractual restrictions? Didn't IBM at one point license Sun code to build its own version of the JVM?

Much of high performance modern VMs (not just JVM) are built on Self project and StrongTalk acquisiotion by Sun. I think Oracle would have quite a few key patents due to this.

Though the Visual works contribution to VM technology cannot be discounted. And it is owned by IBM. So probably IBM and Oracle will not use these patents against each other.

Re: Java as we know it is over. Time to fork?

#30

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 6:52 PM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #2

I've noticed a trend. When people sit around and talk about forking a project, it doesn't happen. When someone forks a project, there's a chance it'll take off. You can't convince someone else to fork something. If they had the drive to fork it, they wouldn't need convincing in the first place.

Isn't this just a special case of "someone oughta do X?" syndrome? If it's not important enough for you personally to make the effort to do it, why do you think anyone else will?