Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Java OS X Oracle Software Apple

Gosling Reacts To Apple's Java Deprecation 436

Posted by timothy
from the could-this-be-turned-into-a-movie dept.
Kurofuneparry writes "Apple has announced that Java is deprecated as of the most recent update to OS X. This shot across the bow is getting some responses. To Jobs' claim that 'Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms,' James Gosling is quoted as saying that 'simply isn't true.' Much talk of a coming turf war is to be had. This certainly can't be unrelated to statements from Jobs recently covered on this website and is sure to make waves. Apple has enjoyed significant success recently accompanied by a widespread sense that they can do no wrong in business or design. However, is deprecating Java a mistake? It doesn't take much insight to connect the dots and see that Apple has starting marking friends and enemies relative to the increasingly heated fight for mobile and other platforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gosling Reacts To Apple's Java Deprecation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @09:55AM (#33996026)

    at least link to the corresponding blog:
    http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/steve_jobs_comments_on_apple [nighthacks.com]

  • by the linux geek (799780) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @09:58AM (#33996046)
    No Eclipse, which is used in a vast number of development tools (including non-Java ones), especially for embedded systems. No NeoOffice, which (at least last time I used OSX, which was admittedly a LONG time ago) is the only way to make OpenOffice on the Mac usable. And plenty of business applications are in Java, either as applets or standalone applications - they'll break too.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:00AM (#33996078)

    They already did. If I'm not mistaken, Windows 7 does not include Java.

  • by Manip (656104) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:02AM (#33996094)
    There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread so let me make this as clear as I can - Apple isn't blocking Sun/Oracle's ability to ship Java for the OS X platform, what they're doing is dropping internal maintenance for the platform from within Apple themselves. Up until now Apple has been porting Java to the OS X platform, and they're now discontinuing that and consequently removing it from their update system.

    If someone else, including Sun/Oracle want to start maintaining a Java for OS X release they absolutely can - it just won't be available via OS X's automatic update scheme any longer (and won't be something Apple is paying for).
  • Re:Oh honestly (Score:5, Informative)

    by jgulla (6152) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:09AM (#33996148)

    First off, IBM and HP maintain their own JVMs (as did Microsoft until the Sun/MS lawsuit). Secondly, Apple insisted on being the one to port their JVM. Reading the blog post by Gosling will tell you that. And thirdly, they didn't do it "for free" (at least in the early days - not sure about the last few years). I was at Javasoft back then, and Sun funded some Apple engineers to work on the port.

    I don't have a problem with someone else (say, Sun^H^H^HOracle) doing the port - it would be more timely, up-to-date, etc. I just wish they would have had a something worked out saying "We're not gonna support our JVM, and Oracle will be doing this starting on ...
     

  • by flimflammer (956759) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:16AM (#33996190)

    Huh? What history are you reading from? Microsoft very much did have their own JVM implementation for many years, then Sun started anti-trust litigation against Microsoft regarding it. Sometime in 2001, Microsoft settled and agreed to stop distributing it.

  • by WebMink (258041) <slashdot@@@webmink...net> on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:27AM (#33996254) Homepage
    While saying "Apple isn't blocking Sun/Oracle's ability to ship Java for the OS X platform" sounds wonderful, it neglects reality. I'm guessing you should read both Gosling's posting [nighthacks.com] and my article [computerworlduk.com]. Gosling explains:

    It simply isn't true that “Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms”. IBM supplies Java for IBM's platforms, HP for HP's, even Azul systems does the JVM for their systems (admittedly, these all start with code from Snorcle - but then, so does Apple). In the beginning, Microsoft provided Java for Windows ... Apple was the same ...

    and I explain:

    Having Oracle take over the development would be hard for several reasons:

    • First, the Java port in use includes a lot of Apple know-how that is not generally available (such as private interfaces) to make Java integrate well rather than using just X11.
    • Second, it belongs to Apple, so Oracle would either have to receive a copy of Apple's implementation or start again with all the UI and platform native code.
    • Third, distribution would move outside Apple's update mechanism so keeping it patched and secure would be difficult - a new installer and update mechanism will be needed.
    • Fourth, the new AppStore rules will make sure there's negligible demand for consumer Java on the Mac.

    Your view would make a good Apple PR position but doesn't address the actual complexities of the situation.

  • by mario_grgic (515333) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:29AM (#33996266)
    Except Davik is not a JVM. You can't download java *.class file and run it on Davik.
  • by mrsteveman1 (1010381) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:54AM (#33996430)

    Apparently you can translate them though and they'll "run".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @10:59AM (#33996466)

    they all have 8-core power macs with 8 gigs of RAM etc. If java doesn't keep up on the Mac, OS-X won't be a viable option for us any more.

    But those are only the minimum system requirements to run java!

  • by JonySuede (1908576) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:05AM (#33996500) Journal

    I know of one significant difference between the jvm: I made a scheme interpreter in java for a BSc project and when my interpreter ran on a mac I could evaluate 10000!, it would take a long time but I would finally have a result but on a pc or linux or even a SUN server it crashed around 4000! with a stack overflow. This difference was caused by the JVM, the one on from apple would optimized tail call recursive JITed methods into loop. The one from SUN would not....

  • by naasking (94116) <naasking AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:05AM (#33996502) Homepage

    You can translate anything to run on any computer. It's called the Turing Tarpit.

  • by JonySuede (1908576) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:11AM (#33996534) Journal

    nope, in 1995 or 1998 MS Java was bundled with the os. The SUN vs MSFT lawsuit was the result of the half-assed bundling.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:13AM (#33996548)

    The Microsoft JVM was a completely Microsoft written implementation if you're refering to the actual virtual machine - If you're referring to the VM and class libraries then I'd say you're wrong but closer to the mark.

    Microsoft built the virtual machine from scratch and they had started building the class libraries when management decided it would be faster to license the class library code from Sun. So it wasn't a port but instead running the common Java classes.

    Those classes were then extended but, up until Sun added specific non-compliance tests for the Microsoft native interfaces, it was the most compliant JVM and library implementation available (it was more compliant at the time than the Sun JVM).

    That all stopped around JDK 1.1.4 ish time and a key argument in the lawsuit was over the native extensions with Microsoft saying the contract gave them the right to create the Windows native extensions and sun saying it didn't (hence the whole RNI/JDirect/JNI thing).

    As an aside the fact that the Microsoft implementation of the VM not being based on Sun's came as a complete surprise to Sun - They thought they had MS locked onto the software roundabout where they'd always be able to control the direction by changing their source.

  • Re:Oh honestly (Score:4, Informative)

    by pavera (320634) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:40AM (#33996714) Homepage Journal

    Unfortunately, as Gosling correctly points out, the claim that apple is the only one doing this is simply not true. IBM, HP, and many other vendors supply their own implementation of Java for their hardware/systems. Microsoft did too for a long time, until they tried "embrace and extend" on the platform and Sun shut them down. Until that happened, the only JVM sun built was for solaris it seems, and maybe the linux version...

    Trying to claim "oh poor apple, they've done all this work for free while everyone else just got a free ride from Sun" is pretty disingenuous given the actual history of JVM implementations.

  • by gig (78408) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:48AM (#33996776)

    Apple announced that their JVM will be supported throughout the rest of it's life cycle. There is no uncertainty from Apple. And in fact, you can rely on them as usual to move forward aggressively and not dwell on old tech like client runtimes. We have HTML5 now, you can run locally in HTML5 and interact with Java on a server.

    If you have questions about the future of Java, ask Oracle for answers. If you built your business on Java, ask Oracle for answers. Java is owned by Oracle.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @11:52AM (#33996804)

    Save this post. It is the first legitimate use of over 9000!

    anon

  • by schnablebg (678930) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @12:04PM (#33996880)

    It has a pro video subsystem, a pro audio subsystem, a pro graphics subsystem, a pro Web development subsystem

    I agree with you, but it is very difficult to have "pro" Web development subsystem if you can't run Java apps. The Amazon EC2 tools and the YUI Javascript compressor are two examples of staple web dev tools that are Java-based, not to mention the popular Eclipse IDE which some use.

  • by pjt33 (739471) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @12:05PM (#33996890)

    You could evaluate it using the Windows or Linux VM, but you'd have to use -Xss.

  • by guyminuslife (1349809) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @12:36PM (#33997100)

    Do you know what Scheme is?

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @12:51PM (#33997168)

    Really now, stop it with the FUD. Just one of those CPUs costs 568.58 - $683.66 CAD so you are looking at 1100-1300 for the CPUs alone then add the price of 8GB of ram, a 1TB SATA drive, Two Radeon HD 5770, a super drive, two 27" LED backlit display, a USB keyboard and mouse. That will add up to a lot of moola.

    Sure, you could buy cheaper monitors, a pair of Core2Duos CPUs, cheaper ram, cheaper HDs, cheaper CD-ROM drive but then you would be comparing Apples to a piece of crap.

    I have to ask you, why did not include a second ATI card when one could drive both displays and why would you need Apple Cinema displays for a "Workstation"? You artificially inflated the price. You could use a cheaper brand of monitor and only one ATI card.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @01:40PM (#33997500)

    this morning, idiot.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 23, 2010 @02:07PM (#33997664)

    You're stretching. Two 27" monitors and two graphics cards? And he didn't say the company wouldn't spend $6k for "your" machine, just that some of their developers use Macs. For all you know the non-Mac developers are using ridiculously expensive Sun workstations or something.

    Besides, the extra $3k might be worth it if it makes the developers more productive. A developer making $70k a year can cost a company around $95k a year with benefits. If the Mac makes them 3% more productive, it's worth it. If the alternative is a Windows PC, a 3% productivity boost seems feasible.

    Not only that, but I pitty the poor bastard who has to approve patches for installation. Instead of being able to do it centrally, he's got to go to each of your machines to do so. Sounds like a nightmare.

    If they're too stupid to use the Mac tools for central admin, they're probably too stupid to use the Windows and Linux tools for doing it.

  • by bonch (38532) on Saturday October 23, 2010 @04:28PM (#33998796)

    Java isn't being "deprecated" on OS X. Apple is just not going to work on its native JVM implementation anymore. This isn't surprising since the Java-Cocoa bridge was deprecated years ago. Third-party JVMs, such as SoyLatte, will continue to work as usual.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...