Java to be Open Sourced in October 267
thePowerOfGrayskull writes "Sun is now stating that the Hotspot JVM and javac will be open-sourced in October of this year, with the rest to follow by the end of 2007. There is still no word as to which license it will be released under. For those who haven't seen it yet, Sun has previously opened a public developer community site for soliciting feedback and providing updates about the process."
Re:Big deal for OSS (Score:1, Interesting)
Closed Java is worse then closed C# (Score:1, Interesting)
C# is Microsoft's solution to the Java problem and most definately will never be open sourced. There are also potential patent issues (I can't believe that there would be _no_ patents that cover C#.)
So because people hate Java (not open sourced), they're embracing an open source implementation of a different closed source project. That makes sense how?
On wait, this is the open source community and what it does doesn't necessarily make sense, there are just emotional responses because someone does something a little bit differently.
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that Java can be redistributed legally (tell that to the slackware guy, he has always included it by default), and will be open sourced soon, it can fight back.
This is what I don't understand about Sun... (Score:3, Interesting)
Better and smaller class libraries (Score:5, Interesting)
A perfect Java distro would maybe drop all the deprecated methods (will Sun ever do that? Java 1.6 is a good opportunity...) and unbundle some of the least-used stuff like the CORBA and RMI stuff. Heck, even Swing and AWT should be optional packages. Why couldn't Java be structured sort of like a Java Web Start install, pulling in libraries only if needed. Almost everything is connected to the internet these days and good caching of libraries from trusted sources would be a decent way to get full functionality with a smaller initial footprint.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, it's not particularly scientific and it speaks more to .NET in general than to Mono specifically, but if you believe Tim O'Reilly's book sales data [oreilly.com] C#/.NET passed Java in popularity/interest over the last year, and is still growing strong (C# sales up 68%, general .NET book sales up 125%; Java book sales are down 6% over the same period).
Of course one could always argue that more .NET books sell because .NET is harder to learn... but having dipped my toe in the Java waters a few times, I find that hard to believe :-)
Re:Big deal for OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really hope that we can look forward to a working, recent Java version on FreeBSD without the old bugs and the trouble with OSS-principles in the near future. Kaffe / Classpath just isn't doing the trick. I wonder what this will do to OpenOffice.org.
It all depends on the license. I do hope this will draw some of the fine folks at Kaffe / GNU / Apache who have done a great job by recoding Java to Java itself. But then, if it isn't the GPLv3, RMS will probably keep screaming for a "real free" reversed engineered version of Java.
Well then, off to Flash... Adobe?
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason you have to ship a JVM with your app is because a) Microsoft intentionally sabotages compatibility (by strong-arming Dell, etc not to ship Java) and b) because Linux distros can't legally ship it because of license restrictions. Java apps work fine on a Mac without shipping their own JVM.
With a JVM installed as a standard system component you run your Java programs just like any other program. You just double-click or
Mono has convenient language syntax with C#, but that's it. The CLR bytecode cannot be interpreted well, so hotspot like optimizations are far harder to do. It's a VM trying to be everything to everybody, so it's not really great at anything. It's startup time is far slower than a gcj'd Java program and it's throughput is much less than a hotspot'd one. The only real benefit is that it is oss.
Re:Big deal for OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Open source changes... (Score:2, Interesting)
My goodness, what a perfect example of why NOT to use operator overloading.
What would you use for an operator? The +, *,
How would operator overloading make the code more readable?
And you could always wrap the whole thing inside one of x's methods, and give it a reasonable name.
And ARM Jazelle bytecode specs ... ? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of embedded CPUs that have "Java Acceleration" built in. I'm specifically concerned with ARM's Jazelle -- as found in ARM926ejs CPUs like the one in the Nokia 770, for example, and all ARM v6 CPUs -- but there is also Atmel's new AVR32 (Linux port is in the MM tree) and there are a few other processors that do the same thing.
But you can't get specs on how to use that stuff ... and if you ask the
chip vendors, the answer is that it's Sun's fault. To get specs, you must
sign agreements with Sun. That's for basic stuff like how to preserve the
relevant processor context, and how to enter or exit the "execute Java bytecodes"
CPU mode, and of course exactly what bytecodes exist. (They just accelerate
the bytecodes ... some things need to punt to runtime code.)
What that means is that for example GCC can't use that CPU acceleration by having its Java runtime (GCJ/GIJ) build on it ... one assumes that this
means a performance penalty for at least the bytecode interpretation parts
of almost every Java runtime environment, though
of course it would be interesting seeing how things like HotSpot affect the
performance numbers. (The CPUs that have Java bytecode acceleration are by
the way not ones that normally have big CPU caches, high clock rates, or
very much memory to waste on the stuff HotSpot does.)
So my question: Is this "Open Sourced Java" going to cover ARM's Jazelle? And the AVR32 Java acceleration? And other chips?
Or is it going to be the same-old, same-old? Folk working with embedded systems want to know... the big system bloatware that that Sun ships is not especially useful. Finally loosening the reins on the bytecode acceleration hardware would be a much more useful step.