Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop? - Page 7


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 115

Thread: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?

  1. #91
    Jason Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "Brad O'Hearne" <brado@neurofire.com> wrote:
    >..NET = single vendor, Java = multi vendor
    >..NET = implementation, Java = specification
    >..NET = no choice, Java = choice
    >..NET = controlled community, Java = free(er) community
    >
    >Those all are BIG issues when choosing a technology, a vendor, and
    >implementing a project.


    These arguments sound religious to me. That is, based on belief, not fact.

    Just admit it. Swing results in unsatisfying GUIs that are more difficult
    to produce and maintain. Come on. Be a man! :-)

    And quit making the "Microsoft is the EVIL EMPIRE" arguments. That is just
    SOOOOO 90's.

  2. #92
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?

    Brad O'Hearne wrote:

    >> Whilst that is now true, I think that is what caused MS to fork off
    >> from Java-the-platform.

    >
    > I feel that I can say pretty authoritatively (as at the time, I was
    > mired deep in a Java/COM project that suffered from this "fork"),
    > that this was not the case. MS technological directions have been
    > first and foremost designed to protect and promote the Windows OS,
    > *not* to promote the best for the developer community. Though this
    > is my humble opinion, I think it is fair to say that it is well
    > supported by the events that played out.


    You can speak authoratively all you like, but I completely disagree.
    Windows is a *Platform*, not just an OS. So of course MS's strategy is
    to protect and promote it, just as Sun's strategy is to protect and
    promote its platform. Buy a Solaris server today, and you get their
    J2EE platform bundled. Buy a Windows.NET server, and you get the .NET
    platform bundled. It is naive to think that MS have less of a concern
    for the developer community than Sun. Historically, MS have provided
    excellent developer support, especially in the mass client market that
    their *platform* originally targetted.

    > MS building native calls
    > into the language is clearly a violation of the Java specification,
    > as it defeats portability, the goal for the platform. It is also
    > blatantly obvious what the objective was: dependence on native calls
    > = dependence on a specific OS. When MS lost the lawsuit to Sun, MS
    > just took their ball and went home, and left everyone using J++ and
    > or Java/COM objects hanging in the wind. This was purely political,
    > not technological, much like the dropping of the VM from XP.


    So let me get this straight. Because MS wanted to use P/Invoke for
    platform specific native calls, instead of supporting Sun's slow and,
    ahem, developer unfriendly, JNI, you read this as a "blatantly obvious"
    strategy to build dependence on Windows?

    I don't get it. Why did Sun introduce JNI as a required standard, if by
    definition, it is for making platform specific native calls. Are you
    saying that JNI promotes portability because it is slow and cumbersome
    compared to P/Invoke?!? Either you have a way to call native code or
    you don't!

    > I couldn't disagree more here. From the get-go, Java has been more
    > than a language, it has been a platform. There is no Java with just
    > language syntax...there's the VM, the runtime, etc.


    I guess we disagree on what makes a "platform". For me, Visual Basic
    and Smalltalk, for example, are languages, even though they also contain
    a VM runtime. Admittedly it is a difficult distinction to make, but
    given the scope of J2ME/J2SE/J2EE, and the replacement of Windows
    platform features under the guise of "portability", Java is effectively
    a platform itself that is *emulated* on the OSs it runs on.

    > In addition, MS
    > would never have promoted Java if they couldn't control it.


    If it was owned and controlled by a standards body rather than an arch
    enemy, and didn't have the scope that Java-the-platform currently has,
    then I don't think either of us could say what would've happened.

    > Again,
    > as soon as their efforts to manipulate the Java platform were
    > thwarted, they turned the turrets on Java and have tried to derail it
    > (and still are). C# is nothing more than a direct attempt to end
    > Java usage on the Windows platform. MS could have built full Java
    > compatibility or at least tight integration into .NET possibly, but
    > they didn't, nor to my knowledge were there any attempts to. They
    > have offered J#, a Windows-only teaser to get Java developers to move
    > to C#. I believe MS has outright stated J# will not exist long-term.


    ..NET is a platform that competes with Java-the-platform, no disagreement
    there. I don't understand the hyperbole though. Scott McNealy can
    hardly string a sentence together without a "and it will hellp kill
    Microsoft" appendage.

    >> C#/CLI = multi-vendor, specification, choice, free community, plus
    >> *standards*.

    >
    > You must be privy to information that I am not. I do not see
    > Microsoft delivering specification, but implementation, and I don't
    > see MS delivering API's, and the community providing the
    > implementation of such. If you are referring to the current CLR
    > efforts on other platforms, I'll give you that (and we will wait to
    > see what this means), but there is no multi-vendor situation in MS
    > land. .NET is brought to you by MS - no one else.


    No, you are missing the point. C#/CLI != .NET! C#/CLI is a standard
    foundational language and runtime. .NET is Microsoft's platform that
    implements that standard, and builds a proprietary platform on top of
    it. There is no distinction in Java, because Java *is* a platform in
    it's own right.

    > I think you need to consider a couple of things. First, I can't
    > consider your examples fact. I don't think that anyone can claim
    > that all developers prefer SWT, developers prefer 3rd Party
    > enterprise platforms, and other mobile APIs. But second, and more
    > importantly, you are essentially saying, "what good is choice, if
    > developers choose something else?". The value of choice is huge.
    > There is no choice in MS-land. If you don't like things the way MS
    > has implemented them, too bad. I don't see how this is somehow a
    > more desirable situation. It is choice that is a strength of the
    > Java platform, and it is choice that will continue to strengthen the
    > platform in the future, as what the developer community deems
    > important will affect its direction.


    Exactly, choice is important. The standard needs to be limited in scope
    to foundational elements, in order to promote differentiation in the
    frameworks built on that foundation. For Java certification, you need
    to support all the frameworks like Swing and J2EE. Why impose that on
    implementors if they'd rather implement better alternatives. I don't
    know if SWT will be successful or not, but I do think that Swing being a
    standard bundled with every JRE will severely restrict it's adoption.

    > Disagree entirely. Your statement is based on the premise that only
    > large enterprises need portability. Completely untrue. I run
    > Windows, Linux, MacOs, and Palm in my home office.


    You are a developer, not an end-user. End-user focus, is ultimately
    more important then Developer focus.

    > I think Java more
    > than any other development platform takes us closer to where we
    > should be technologically, and that is commoditized OS's. With the
    > hardware progress and software technological progress we have made,
    > we are still behind the curve in this area. As developers, we should
    > be able to view the OS as a swappable widget. I don't see Redmond
    > having any interest in such technological progress.


    The OS is already commoditized, isn't it? Nobody buys Windows or MacOS
    because of the core OS, they buy it because of the GUI shell, the
    bundled apps, 3rd-party apps, docs and support etc.. Java provides its
    own GUI shell and apps, it's just emulated on lots of other peoples
    platforms.

    If you are so keen on OS choice, then surely you surely you should be
    even more keen on Platform/API and Language choice, since this is an
    area that is far more relevant to developers nowadays. The OS is almost
    irrelevant.

    The whole value proposition of Java is based around reducing choice by
    standardizing the APIs. Sure, you have vendor choice, but the platform
    is the same for end-users and developers. There is little room for
    diversity.

    > David, I respect your opinion, and can tell that you are an MS
    > advocate, which is great. It was a pleasure responding!


    Well, I do think .NET is much better than Java for most solutions.
    Although I'm more of a standard C#/CLI/XML/SOAP advocate, but if it
    gives pleasure, I can be any advocate you want me to be. :-)

    --
    David




  3. #93
    David Bayley Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?

    Brad O'Hearne wrote:

    > No application is inherently superior just because of the platform.


    True, but the platform is a significant factor in superiority.

    > Poor applications can be architected on any platform. But even if
    > the assumption was exceptional architecture, I don't believe you can
    > back this statement up. I don't think anyone can make this kind of
    > statement either pro-.NET or pro-Java.


    Its too early to back up the claim for .NET vs J2SE. But IME Swing apps
    do suck, and I don't accept your argument given elsewhere that its just
    because Swing developers suck (i.e. that the apps weren't "architected"
    well). JBuilder is about as good as it gets, and it still sucks
    compared to Eclipse, Delphi, VS.NET.

    Somebody tell Swing developers that Ctrl-Ins copies the selection to the
    clipboard, for just one of my show-stoppers.

    > .NET has one advantage over
    > Java on Windows: native OS calls.


    Java has native OS calls too with JNI. No, there many advantages to
    ..NET, too many to mention. Java has many advantages too.

    > "Joe Gamer" doesn't have the ability to have the best hardware always
    > that money can buy. You are assuming this is the average case -- it
    > isn't. And to stay on topic, this isn't the case with other
    > applications either. Portability is a real need, and enterprises
    > should be able to leverage their existing hardware.


    Yes, large enterprises can benefit from leveraging existing heterogenous
    hardware. I just don't see that problem with SMEs and Home-Users IME.
    The hardware is a relatively minor cost, and is usually replaced when a
    new software system is introduced. The software costs however are
    enormous.

    >> As for the relatively trivial business apps, declaritive XML provides
    >> much better platform-independence than Java.

    >
    > XML provides no platform independence in and of itself. XML is
    > simply a markup format. Without a parser, and an application/runtime
    > to make it do something, XML is just another text file.


    To clarify, when I refer to XML, I am implicitly referring to the
    surrounding technologies that are based on XML. An on topic comparison
    would be Java. Even though the original Java spec. was just a limited
    language and runtime, sans frameworks, when people refer to Java today
    they implicitly referring to the whole platform, industry, community,
    and desert topping.

    (FWIW, the emerging view of XML is the abstract _Infoset_. Text files
    are just particular encodings of that Infoset.)

    --
    David




  4. #94
    Brad O'Hearne Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?

    Hey Jason, BradO here. Developing this statement only in the thread is
    fairly off-topic, but just to let you know it wasn't an unfounded statement,
    my comment follows yours.

    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d9224b2$1@10.1.10.29...
    > It is time you upgraded from Windows 98 then, or you need to quit buying
    > no-name mobos with VIA chipsets. I use Windows XP and Windows 2000 for

    development.
    > I routinely kick the living crud out of my machines with the things I do
    > to them. I rarely have to reboot any of my machines. Maybe once a month.
    > Maybe. Well, except when I install new software, but even then I only

    have
    > to reboot about half the time.
    >
    > Sounds like you haven't used a "real" version of Windows in a while.


    I've been using XP for over 6 months on both a desktop and a notebook and
    have blue screened several times on both, have locked up many times, have
    hung the machine both restarting and logging out, and had a video card fried
    by an automatic (and involuntary) video driver change performed by Windows
    update.

    Now, to turn this back *on-topic*, the point is that we tolerate performance
    issues every day in both the OS and many of the common apps we use. It is
    usability that is the proper gauge for a UI, not a stopwatch.

    Cheers,

    BradO
    --
    Brad O'Hearne
    DevX Section Leader





  5. #95
    Rob Abbe Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    Jason,

    Who other than Microsoft has had direct input on the direction of the .Net
    platform? I'm talking about the platform not the CLR or CLI.

    Take a trip out to the Sun website and look at the Java Community process.
    Then tell me where the Microsoft community process is.

    The argument doesn't sound so religious now does it?

    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Brad O'Hearne" <brado@neurofire.com> wrote:
    >>..NET = single vendor, Java = multi vendor
    >>..NET = implementation, Java = specification
    >>..NET = no choice, Java = choice
    >>..NET = controlled community, Java = free(er) community
    >>
    >>Those all are BIG issues when choosing a technology, a vendor, and
    >>implementing a project.

    >
    >These arguments sound religious to me. That is, based on belief, not fact.
    >
    >Just admit it. Swing results in unsatisfying GUIs that are more difficult
    >to produce and maintain. Come on. Be a man! :-)
    >
    >And quit making the "Microsoft is the EVIL EMPIRE" arguments. That is just
    >SOOOOO 90's.



  6. #96
    Rob Abbe Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Just to get this straight - C# and the .NET framework are open standards
    >governed by ECMA. Microsoft has a lot of say in the standard, but they

    are
    >not the governing body.


    I don't think this is entirely true Jason, the CLR and CLI are managed by
    the ECMA. The framework and libraries are the property of Microsoft. .Net
    is also a registered trademark of Microsoft.

    >
    >Java, as a standard, is wholly owned and controlled by Sun. They have turned
    >down the opportunity to submit Java to an open standards body. I believe
    >this has been detrimental to Java, resulting in delays of XML support, lack
    >of support for COM, and lack of support for better client libraries for

    Windows.

    We have yet to see what great things the ECMA will do for .Net right now
    all of the innovation is coming from one place on the west coast.

    The Java brand is owned by Sun. However there are parts of the platform that
    use technolgy licenesed from Adobe, Kodak and others. So you see, Sun cannot
    just turn over the platform because they don't own all of it.

    > These are all Microsoft/IBM initiatives that Sun refused to participate
    >in because they want to control the platform.


    When Microsoft got it's mits on Java, it churned out a Windows only version
    called J++. Steps have to be taken to protect the Java brand. Sun controlling
    Java is not all bad. Also, Java is much bigger than one company. It has
    the backing of IBM, Oracle, BEA and others, I think even some developers
    from Nasa have submitted JSRs. This is a far cry from the closed doors of
    Redmond.

    >
    >Come on, would it hurt so much to support COM the way CORBA is supported?
    > Hmmm? It sure would have made my life a lot easier over the past several
    >years.


    MS pretty much bailed on COM as well. If it was that big a deal for you,
    you could have used a bridge.

    >>Allegedly. Looking at MS's past and that Windows and having everything

    >run
    >>on it is of utmost importance the the survival of their company - don't

    >bet
    >>on it.

    >
    >Microsoft recently released an OPEN SOURCE version of .NET that runs on

    FREE
    >BSD, as well as XP. It is considered an early beta, but it is clear that
    >they are aiming this squarely at Unix. It does not have all the Windows-specific
    >hooks in it, but then how many server-side Java programs written for Unix
    >are based on Swing?
    >
    >.NET will run on Unix, in a production product, within 18 months.


    I remember when there were versions of Windows NT for Risc processors too.
    Microsoft has a nasty habit of abandoning projects, I would never put
    my faith in them. Just ask the VB developers about that.

    Don't expect MS to back open source, they see it as being socialist.

    >
    >>>portability is usually the strongest argument in favor of Java, but, imo,
    >>>except for the desktop apps, portability is pretty much irrelevant.

    >>Then you must not be doing server-side stuff. Because it highly matters
    >>there.

    >
    >Like I was just saying... :-)
    >
    >>>And
    >>>desktop apps is exactly the place where Sun has nothing to say at this
    >>>moment.

    >>So. Ignore them on this matter and use another Java GUI API.

    >
    >How many Java GUI APIs do I need? How many are supported by Sun, so I know
    >they will still be supported in 10 years? How do I find programmers who
    >have experience with all these APIs? Why are these APIs so much more difficult
    >to develop with and maintain than the .NET APIs?


    They're not more difficult to use than .Net this is your opinion. Besides
    a little company called IBM has a lot of resoruces behind SWT, so I doubt
    it's going anywhere.

    Microsoft based the .Net libraries off the JFC which is very similar to the
    swing classes in many ways.

    >
    >If Sun wants to compete with Microsoft on the desktop, the equation is simple.
    > They need to make desktop application development in Java (1)as simple

    as
    >possible and (2)as powerful as possible.


    It's hard to compete when the competition holds a monopoly on the Desktop
    and does everything in their power to limit what you can do.

    That being said, the performance of Swing is just fine, it's skinable which
    is another plus. It's perfect for line of business applications and much
    more.


  7. #97
    Rob Abbe Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    You do raise some very good points.

    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >I think the article was off on a lot of points. Let me preface this by

    saying
    >that I LIKE JAVA alot, and use it regularly for writing server-side software.
    > And I hate the fact that Sun won't get their act together and at least

    TRY
    >to compete with .NET on the client.
    >
    >But, in my humble opinion, marketing Swing as the next big thing is not

    going
    >to solve the fundamental technical problems that make people CRINGE whenever
    >they hear "client" and "Java" in the same sentence.


    LOL Marketing seldom solves anyones problems. It just convinces them they
    are solved or not important.

    >
    >#1: Quit making excuses for the sluggishness of Swing. It needs to be

    fixed,
    >or Swing will remain inferior to native OS applications.

    Greater performance should be strived for. But I still content it's acceptable
    for business applications.

    >
    >#2: Quit making excuses for the mammoth amount of memory Swing apps take.
    > This also needs to be fixed.


    I'm in total agreement here, though memory is cheap and I've had no one complain.

    >
    >#3: StarOffice is not 100% Java. It is mostly C++. Right? So don't go
    >telling me you are going to replace Microsoft Office with a Java app. Not
    >until the GUI tools are much enhanced.


    StarOffice is almost entirely C++

    >
    >#4: Java is still missing all sorts of little things that would make life
    >much easier when targeting a Windows box:
    > A: How much space do I have left on my current drive?
    > B: Rudimentary registry access without JNI.
    > C: It will NEVER, NEVER look and feel like a Windows app
    > until Java supports a native GUI engine.


    .Net is now missing many of the things that should be there such as com port
    access, etc... This is because it's trying to be platform independant like
    Java. I hate the registry, so I could care less if Java can access it.
    How many other platforms have a registry?

    >#5: The object model is just too darn difficult. Better than AWT, but

    take
    >a look at the .NET object model. Events were not an afterthought. Performance
    >was not an afterthought. You don't need umpteen billion objects just to
    >do some simple task. Everything jives with Windows programming.


    The SWING object model is quite similar to that of .Net. What are you having
    a hard time with?

    >
    >In my opinion, Sun needs to really concentrate on the client. But, instead
    >of pushing Swing, they need to either revamp Swing or start from scratch.
    >

    One should always strive for perfection.

    >Can't revamp Swing? Are you telling me that Sun can't do a better job with
    >taking advantage of graphics accelerators in the native code? Sun can't
    >use native dialog boxes and windowing constructs rather than writing everything
    >from scratch?


    The JRE does not take advantage of hardware acceleration. 1.4.x is a big
    improvment over prior runtimes.

    >Or maybe they should just adopt something like SWT as the new standard for
    >clients, and spend a lot of time over the next couple of years making it
    >an industrial strength GUI toolkit.


    That is a possiblity. Although pride may get in the way. SWT is lean and
    mean!

    >But stop making excuses for Swing. With tremendous effort, you can make
    >halfway decent apps with Swing. Big deal. With minimal effort, I can make
    >superior-looking, high-performing, native apps with .NET. And all my customers
    >use Windows as their client, every last one of them. Without exception.
    > And they aren't planning to change that. SO I DON'T CARE IF THE .NET GUI
    >WON'T RUN ON A LINUX BOX.


    I agree, that there is no use in pretending that Swing is not without problems.
    It clearly has some. That being said, Swing is very usable right now.
    People are using it everyday.

    >If Java is going to compete with .NET on the client, then Sun needs to make
    >several major changes, and anything less than that will fall short. If

    Sun
    >had done a better job a few years back, we might accept slightly less than
    >perfect GUIs from Java. But Java never established itself on the client,
    >and now Microsoft has raised the bar from VB6 to .NET. If Sun does not

    find
    >a way to one-up Microsoft, then they have already lost the battle for the
    >client.


    Yep, you're right there. The focus became the server side and the client
    became an after thought. I can't say that I blame them though. .Net is
    way behind on the server, which is where the majority of the money is in
    enterprise computing. An area Microsoft has pretty much failed to dominate.
    Now that Java dominates the server, maybe good things will come for rich
    clients?

    Rob


  8. #98
    Ovidiu Platon Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?

    "Rob Abbe" <rabbe@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:3d926c8c$1@10.1.10.29...
    >
    > Jason,
    >
    > Who other than Microsoft has had direct input on the direction of the .Net
    > platform? I'm talking about the platform not the CLR or CLI.
    >


    A whole bunch of developers who worked with Beta 1, Beta 2 and a Release
    Candidate of the .NET Framework and of Visual Studio.



  9. #99
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "Ovidiu Platon" <ovidiupl@microsoft-lab.pub.ro> wrote:
    >"Rob Abbe" <rabbe@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:3d926c8c$1@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> Jason,
    >>
    >> Who other than Microsoft has had direct input on the direction of the

    .Net
    >> platform? I'm talking about the platform not the CLR or CLI.
    >>

    >
    >A whole bunch of developers who worked with Beta 1, Beta 2 and a Release
    >Candidate of the .NET Framework and of Visual Studio.
    >

    The key word was 'direct'.

  10. #100
    Mark Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    I think Java Swing apps can be visually better than VB6. Yeah Swing has its
    issues. With SWT the issues are solved and it is cross platform now. VB6
    and VS.Net are Windows only and if good luck prevails Winforms may be too.
    So today I can do cross platform Java apps that act and work like 'native'
    apps. So the only thing left to consider is the developer and architectual
    design. VB6 requires copying data or databound controls - alot of work or
    a lot of pain. VS.Net does allow the use of models but, where as with Swing
    it is built in, you have to 'roll your own' in VS.Net.


    I think most of what people complain about in Swing is in the developers
    mind. Not the users. There are a few most won't notice or care. If one
    uses the Windows LAF and don't point out issues to the user - they will never
    know.

    I know you think Java Guis are more expensive to write than .Net. But don't
    forgot MS.Net GUIs only run on Windows. Java GUIS will run on at least 4
    times as many. I can whip out a GUI in Java too and it will be cheap. Most
    GUIs built today are not well thought out and well designed. That is what
    takes so long.

    I would agree that Swing probably isn't the future. But I don't think Windows
    is either. It may be the present but the future is approaching quickly.


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"MarkN" <m@N.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Basic (MS, why not?) philosophy: go where the money is...

    >>
    >>That is my point. Why not target a wider (and future) audience?

    >
    >If you develop an app that is visibly inferior to a VB6 app, with lots of
    >little funny behaviors that no one can explain, why is your customer going
    >to prefer that over something that looks good and performs as expected?
    >
    >Customers don't care what is under the hood. They want features, reliability,
    >and performance. If you can deliver a sexy car with 300HP that gets 75MPG,
    >they are going to be happy. If you give them a Yugo, they won't like it
    >no matter how much you explain that it runs well in both European countries
    >and North America (weak allusion to multi-platform).
    >
    >What happens when you tell your customer that the Yugo they are paying for
    >is twice as expensive as the cool sports car they could have gotten? .NET
    >apps are easier to write than Java apps, for GUIs at least.
    >
    >Most apps I have seen written in VB, even by novices, look reasonably good
    >to the end users. Most GUI apps I have seen written in Java, even by very
    >experienced Java programmers, looked and felt inferior to native Windows
    >programs, and had weird intermittent behaviors that no one could seem to
    >explain or fix. The worst Java programs I have seen are just horrible,

    and
    >at least one of these was packaged and shipped as part of the Java SDK.


    >Better in the latest version, but still...
    >
    >So why the heck should I believe that Java has a future on the client?

    .NET
    >GUIs are here, and solid. Java GUIs are very slowly getting a little better
    >here and there (the bug list is smaller these days, but Sun is still working
    >too slowly), but the phrase "too little, too late" comes to mind.
    >
    >I use Java regularly for server-side stuff. Using .NET and Java side by
    >side for GUI development, I would not even consider trying to shove one

    of
    >these Java client applications down my customer's throats.
    >
    >Customers care about performance, reliability, and features. My reputation
    >rests on being able to deliver that to them. When faced with a choice of
    >,NET or Java, it's .NET. When faced with a choice of VB6 or Java, it's

    VB6.
    > The GUIs are more responsive, and look like Windows apps. The dialogs

    are
    >standard to the operating system, not some half-baked copy. The windows
    >paint faster. They behave like Window's windows are supposed to behave.
    > The controls all look and feel like in every other application in Windows.
    >
    >
    >I don't know what the future holds, exactly, but I do know this: it ain't
    >going to be dominated by Swing-based applications. Not if people continue
    >to use Windows.



  11. #101
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"Brad O'Hearne" <brado@neurofire.com> wrote:
    >>..NET = single vendor, Java = multi vendor
    >>..NET = implementation, Java = specification
    >>..NET = no choice, Java = choice
    >>..NET = controlled community, Java = free(er) community
    >>
    >>Those all are BIG issues when choosing a technology, a vendor, and
    >>implementing a project.

    >
    >These arguments sound religious to me. That is, based on belief, not fact.
    >
    >Just admit it. Swing results in unsatisfying GUIs that are more difficult
    >to produce and maintain. Come on. Be a man! :-)
    >
    >And quit making the "Microsoft is the EVIL EMPIRE" arguments. That is just
    >SOOOOO 90's.


    For those ignoring the facts, it does seem 'religious'. By the way religion
    can (and some are) be based on fact. And this is based on fact.

  12. #102
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    >And quite frankly, I do not believe that Java GUIs will ever be good >enough
    >to pass for real Windows applications.

    Why? Because of no GPFs?

    Really, many have seen WSAD\Eclipse and had no clue it was written in Java.
    They were shocked.

  13. #103
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "Jason" <jason@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >"MarkN" <m@N.com> wrote:
    >>Not between different platforms. In .Net you don't even know what exceptions
    >>can be thrown unless they are documented.

    >
    >Neither do you know in Java. RuntimeException. I rest my case. :-


    Looks like you know it can be. I didn't say all that could be. Java is much
    better in the area. I rest my case.


  14. #104
    Rob Abbe Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    ROFL!!!!! So that's just as good as the Java community process eh? Give
    me an example of an API that was contributed by beta developers. If there
    had been community involvement, then VB6 code would probably port nicely
    to VB.Net, but it does not. When the VB6 developers complained MS changed
    a couple of things and left the rest the same. Is this community involvement?

    There is NO community involvement in .Net unless it is from the community
    that works for Microsoft. You can dream though right?

    "Ovidiu Platon" <ovidiupl@microsoft-lab.pub.ro> wrote:
    >"Rob Abbe" <rabbe@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:3d926c8c$1@10.1.10.29...
    >>
    >> Jason,
    >>
    >> Who other than Microsoft has had direct input on the direction of the

    .Net
    >> platform? I'm talking about the platform not the CLR or CLI.
    >>

    >
    >A whole bunch of developers who worked with Beta 1, Beta 2 and a Release
    >Candidate of the .NET Framework and of Visual Studio.
    >
    >



  15. #105
    Rob Abbe Guest

    Re: Has Sun Given Up on the Desktop?


    "David Bayley" <dbayley@spamless.aebacus.com> wrote:
    >Brad O'Hearne wrote:
    >
    >>> Whilst that is now true, I think that is what caused MS to fork off
    >>> from Java-the-platform.

    >>
    >> I feel that I can say pretty authoritatively (as at the time, I was
    >> mired deep in a Java/COM project that suffered from this "fork"),
    >> that this was not the case. MS technological directions have been
    >> first and foremost designed to protect and promote the Windows OS,
    >> *not* to promote the best for the developer community. Though this
    >> is my humble opinion, I think it is fair to say that it is well
    >> supported by the events that played out.

    >
    >You can speak authoratively all you like, but I completely disagree.
    >Windows is a *Platform*, not just an OS. So of course MS's strategy is
    >to protect and promote it, just as Sun's strategy is to protect and
    >promote its platform. Buy a Solaris server today, and you get their
    >J2EE platform bundled. Buy a Windows.NET server, and you get the .NET
    >platform bundled. It is naive to think that MS have less of a concern
    >for the developer community than Sun. Historically, MS have provided
    >excellent developer support, especially in the mass client market that
    >their *platform* originally targetted.


    I can sum up Microsofts "Excellent Support" of it's developers in three chars...
    VB6

    >> MS building native calls
    >> into the language is clearly a violation of the Java specification,
    >> as it defeats portability, the goal for the platform. It is also
    >> blatantly obvious what the objective was: dependence on native calls
    >> = dependence on a specific OS. When MS lost the lawsuit to Sun, MS
    >> just took their ball and went home, and left everyone using J++ and
    >> or Java/COM objects hanging in the wind. This was purely political,
    >> not technological, much like the dropping of the VM from XP.


    >So let me get this straight. Because MS wanted to use P/Invoke for
    >platform specific native calls, instead of supporting Sun's slow and,
    >ahem, developer unfriendly, JNI, you read this as a "blatantly obvious"
    >strategy to build dependence on Windows?


    There was alot more to it that just JNI... RMI for example was missing.
    This is just another example of the embrace extend and eliminate that we
    have seen from Microsoft over the years.

    >I don't get it. Why did Sun introduce JNI as a required standard, if by
    >definition, it is for making platform specific native calls. Are you
    >saying that JNI promotes portability because it is slow and cumbersome
    >compared to P/Invoke?!? Either you have a way to call native code or
    >you don't!


    It was for making native calls in a common way. I agree it could have been
    better, but that is beside the point. If it's supposed to be there to bare
    the Java brand, then it should have been there.

    >> I couldn't disagree more here. From the get-go, Java has been more
    >> than a language, it has been a platform. There is no Java with just
    >> language syntax...there's the VM, the runtime, etc.

    >
    >I guess we disagree on what makes a "platform". For me, Visual Basic
    >and Smalltalk, for example, are languages, even though they also contain
    >a VM runtime. Admittedly it is a difficult distinction to make, but
    >given the scope of J2ME/J2SE/J2EE, and the replacement of Windows
    >platform features under the guise of "portability", Java is effectively
    >a platform itself that is *emulated* on the OSs it runs on.


    Java is both platform and language. Java is an abstraction of a computer.
    It understands byte code rather than a specific machine language. This is
    becoming the norm for software plafrorms because it ensures binary compatibility
    of applications as long as the platform has been ported to the desired CPU.
    You still have to recompile VB applications to run on a new CPU architecture.
    Does that clear it up?


    >> In addition, MS
    >> would never have promoted Java if they couldn't control it.

    >
    >If it was owned and controlled by a standards body rather than an arch
    >enemy, and didn't have the scope that Java-the-platform currently has,
    >then I don't think either of us could say what would've happened.

    Maybe... Maybe not.

    >> Again,
    >> as soon as their efforts to manipulate the Java platform were
    >> thwarted, they turned the turrets on Java and have tried to derail it
    >> (and still are). C# is nothing more than a direct attempt to end
    >> Java usage on the Windows platform. MS could have built full Java
    >> compatibility or at least tight integration into .NET possibly, but
    >> they didn't, nor to my knowledge were there any attempts to. They
    >> have offered J#, a Windows-only teaser to get Java developers to move
    >> to C#. I believe MS has outright stated J# will not exist long-term.

    >
    >..NET is a platform that competes with Java-the-platform, no disagreement
    >there. I don't understand the hyperbole though. Scott McNealy can
    >hardly string a sentence together without a "and it will hellp kill
    >Microsoft" appendage.


    I don't get this either. I wish he would shut up.

    >>> C#/CLI = multi-vendor, specification, choice, free community, plus
    >>> *standards*.

    >>
    >> You must be privy to information that I am not. I do not see
    >> Microsoft delivering specification, but implementation, and I don't
    >> see MS delivering API's, and the community providing the
    >> implementation of such. If you are referring to the current CLR
    >> efforts on other platforms, I'll give you that (and we will wait to
    >> see what this means), but there is no multi-vendor situation in MS
    >> land. .NET is brought to you by MS - no one else.

    >
    >No, you are missing the point. C#/CLI != .NET! C#/CLI is a standard
    >foundational language and runtime. .NET is Microsoft's platform that
    >implements that standard, and builds a proprietary platform on top of
    >it. There is no distinction in Java, because Java *is* a platform in
    >it's own right.


    No, he's hit it right on the head. Microsoft released the CLR and CLI and
    C# to the ECMA however they control who can implement the spec. To be more
    like Java ASP.Net would and the rest of the platform would be released as
    well and the community would shape the future of the platform. Right not
    Microsoft shapes that future. The Java community process is far better.

    >> I think you need to consider a couple of things. First, I can't
    >> consider your examples fact. I don't think that anyone can claim
    >> that all developers prefer SWT, developers prefer 3rd Party
    >> enterprise platforms, and other mobile APIs. But second, and more
    >> importantly, you are essentially saying, "what good is choice, if
    >> developers choose something else?". The value of choice is huge.
    >> There is no choice in MS-land. If you don't like things the way MS
    >> has implemented them, too bad. I don't see how this is somehow a
    >> more desirable situation. It is choice that is a strength of the
    >> Java platform, and it is choice that will continue to strengthen the
    >> platform in the future, as what the developer community deems
    >> important will affect its direction.

    >
    >Exactly, choice is important. The standard needs to be limited in scope
    >to foundational elements, in order to promote differentiation in the
    >frameworks built on that foundation. For Java certification, you need
    >to support all the frameworks like Swing and J2EE. Why impose that on
    >implementors if they'd rather implement better alternatives. I don't
    >know if SWT will be successful or not, but I do think that Swing being a
    >standard bundled with every JRE will severely restrict it's adoption.


    These things are required to be in place so that you can ensure that your
    Java application will run on a Java certified runtime. Makes sense to me.
    If you use something nonstandard, then it's your responsibility to make
    sure everything required is installed. I want to ensure that anywhere a
    Java platform exists, that my program will run. With Java I get this right
    now. Why would I want it to change. If Joe Blow were allowed to create
    his own Java runtime with the bits and pieces he wants then there is no assurance
    my program will run unless I always use his implementation. This is the
    direction that .Net is headed and it sucks!!!!

    >> Disagree entirely. Your statement is based on the premise that only
    >> large enterprises need portability. Completely untrue. I run
    >> Windows, Linux, MacOs, and Palm in my home office.

    >
    >You are a developer, not an end-user. End-user focus, is ultimately
    >more important then Developer focus.


    Huh?

    >> I think Java more
    >> than any other development platform takes us closer to where we
    >> should be technologically, and that is commoditized OS's. With the
    >> hardware progress and software technological progress we have made,
    >> we are still behind the curve in this area. As developers, we should
    >> be able to view the OS as a swappable widget. I don't see Redmond
    >> having any interest in such technological progress.

    >
    >The OS is already commoditized, isn't it? Nobody buys Windows or MacOS
    >because of the core OS, they buy it because of the GUI shell, the
    >bundled apps, 3rd-party apps, docs and support etc.. Java provides its
    >own GUI shell and apps, it's just emulated on lots of other peoples
    >platforms.
    >
    >If you are so keen on OS choice, then surely you surely you should be
    >even more keen on Platform/API and Language choice, since this is an
    >area that is far more relevant to developers nowadays. The OS is almost
    >irrelevant.


    I agree, the OS is irrelevant.

    >The whole value proposition of Java is based around reducing choice by
    >standardizing the APIs. Sure, you have vendor choice, but the platform
    >is the same for end-users and developers. There is little room for
    >diversity.


    This is beneficial for both the customer and the developer. Most importantly
    the customer is not locked into one vendor and is assured that their investment
    will live on if they change vendors. The developer need only one set of
    APIs to leverage a large number of vendors platforms. The vendors are free
    to perform the implementation as they choose as long as the interface is
    compatible with the spec. How is this bad? Everyone wins.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center