| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
The Future of Java | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: NewsFactor | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Since Java is no longer the "next big thing," and hype-heavy headlines about it have largely disappeared from tech and mainstream publications, one might harbor the impression that the language and platform are falling by the wayside. In fact, Java has finally achieved one of the highest honors the tech industry can bestow: It is taken for granted as part of the infrastructure on which many companies depend. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:28:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/25/2003 12:34:10 AM |
|
Ok... I'll bite.
He added that the process, though somewhat biased toward Sun, still affords companies a better choice than having one company dictate the technology in its entirety. "The .NET technology is one which is closed, and one company's technology. Sun's ... is a community." Wait... so, the JCP is "open" even though Sun has absolutely 100% control over everything that is Java? The JCP is open even though Sun could decided to veto any decision done through the JCP? The JCP is open, but the fact that the most important parts of .NET (the CLR, C#, most of the FCL, etc.) are ECMA and ISO standards make .NET closed? Ok, and Michael Jackson is black. "If anything, Microsoft, by releasing C# and .NET, is admitting the distribution model is the right way to go. What people are going to find with the Java platform [is that] you'll get all the benefits of C# without the vendor lock-in." I'm not entirely sure what a "distribution model" is, but I do know that the ideas that J2EE brings to the table were brought to the table long before Java. In fact, many of the first implementations of things like large scale distributed transactions were done by Microsoft with DCOM before J2EE was a twinkle in Sun's eye. Again, I don't know what a "distribution model" is, but I'm assuming they mean distributed model. While I agree to a certain extent that right now you have vendor lock-in, there are two caveats to that agreement. First, the vendor is Microsoft. They're the largest software company in the world. There is little to no danger that they won't be around to support their products anytime soon. Second, thanks to the fact that the most important parts of .NET are truly open standards, the process of porting them to platforms other than Windows is well underway. Microsoft itself has ported .NET to both OS 10.2, and to FreeBSD. The Go-Mono project (www.go-mono.org) is porting it to Linux, as is the DotGnu project (www.dotgnu.org). It has been argued by some that this means nothing. Microsoft could pull their support at any moment. I don't think that's a valid argument. There has been no evidence Microsoft is planning on pulling support for any .NET porting project... quite the opposite; they've been very helpful. The portions of go-mono that are not parts of the ISO/ECMA standard, for instance, have been supplied to the project directly by Microsoft. The only portions of the project they could prevent people from developing are those portions (like ASP.NET, for instance) that are not yet part of the ISO/ECMA standard. Since Microsoft has shown nothing but support for these projects up until now, there is no reason to believe they will change their minds. In addition, even if they did "pull support", the portions they could pull support for are minor in the grand-.NET scheme of things. Indeed, aside from perhaps ASP.NET (which I think Microsoft is treating as a .NET implementation itself, more than something that is a part of .NET), those parts of .NET that are not part of the ISO/ECMA standard are missing not because of some secret plot, but because they either don't make much sense to be in a cross platform standard (like WinForms), or because they didn't have time to prepare them for standardization (like ADO.NET). Continued on next post... This post was edited by RMD on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 at 09:00. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/25/2003 12:35:00 AM |
|
Continued from previous post...
Hunter agreed there is no danger that .NET will displace Java. "Basically, I think .NET is Pepsi and Java is Coke," he said. "They're very similar, but they each have some of their own quirks and differences. Some people like one more than the other." No danger? I donno about that: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-978922.html http://www.sys-con.com/java/article.cfm?id=1401 http://mshiltonj.com/sm/categories/technologies/ (Something is funky with the last few days of stats on this site... obviously something is wrong.) http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm In addition, Hunter said, the Windows lock-in is understated. "If you're doing .NET, you're still deploying on Windows. Even though there are projects to do .NET on other platforms, they don't have [Web] forms ... so you have to deploy on Windows. That's the thing people don't mention often enough. [There's] no choice in software and hardware to the extent that you have on the Java side." This is, of course, a valid point. Right now, if you're going to do .NET, you're probably gonna be on Windows. But, as I said, that is quickly changing. At any rate, sometimes being "locked in" to a particular vendor isn't a bad thing. If that vendor happens to provide the best solution, then it's a no brainer. The only time I see people worrying about server application platforms is when they're already locked in. In other words, it probably doesn't make sense to switch from a J2EE solution to a .NET solution, because in all likelihood, you're running Solaris, or Linux, or HP, or whatever... no Windows. If you're already on Windows, or if you're starting something new, then .NET is the obvious choice. Since Microsoft is making considerably headway in the server market, I see .NET growing in leaps and bound over the next few years. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/25/2003 7:45:22 PM |
|
#3 - "I totally disagree. It's a matter of long term thinking. There is zero probability that a vendor that is best at one point will be best for all time. Doesn't happen. "
Well, obviously. This is why I said: "First, the vendor is Microsoft. They're the largest software company in the world. There is little to no danger that they won't be around to support their products anytime soon." "It's like saying that signing yourself into slavery is a no brainer if it leads to the best job available. You have no control over how the relationship evolves." I have no idea what that analogy is supposed to mean. If you make choices about software platforms based on things that have no affect on your product's/service's current scope, then you're making a bad choice. For instance, if I don't need portability of code in my product, it's silly to use the fact a platform is easily ported as a factor in your choice. Saying "but it COULD do this IF we ever need it to do this" is a sure fire way to have a bloated, late, and crappy product. |
| #4 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/25/2003 11:01:25 PM |
|
#5 - "I didn't mention support, I talked about the fact that the best now will not be the best for every tomorrow."
Um... ok, so what? We pick one that's worse and hope it gets better? If it's not about support, it must be about the product itself. But unless you have some magical knowledge about the future, you must go with what's available. "In reality, as the Y2K situation showed, code lasts much longer than that, the need for a system lasts a long time, the need to upgrade does not arrise as often as technologists think it will (or should)." Well, Y2K is a fairly isolated and rare thing, and it had little to do with choosing a platform. Short sighted programming is different than short sighted platform choices. You should always choose the best platform that meets your scope and is feasible in your enterprise. It really is that simple. The slave analogy is that by putting up with lock-in because the product is currently thought to be best you have entered into a relationship over which you have little control because it seems good at the <i>moment</i>. Well, I'm still not sure what you're suggesting we do. Never choose anything for fear it might one day become obsolete? (Which it always will.) The only choice you have is to pick from available options. The platform that best fits your current scope should invariably be the one you pick. If you scope changes, the so beit... but it shouldn't change so significantly that the platform becomes invalid... if it does, then you need new project managers. fact is, at that moment, you are giving up control of your freedom. Correct. Making a choice then limits future choices. That is, and always will be, a fact, regardless of the choice you make. So even if a product is best, vendor lockin is a negative mark that in many cases should be considered a big negative mark. A big negative mark? So, if I'm developing an solution that exposes web services (based on open standards that will certainly be cotinually supported by the vendor), I should worry about choosing ASP.NET because I no longer have the option of completely changing the server platform? What about if I already own Microsoft-based servers? Obviously, it should only be considered a "big negative mark" when portability is part of the scope of the project. Otherwise, making that a big negative mark needlessly limits your choices. So, on one hand, you have the option of choosing a vendor that meets all your needs and having the best platform available to develop your application on. On the other side, you have the option of choosing an inferior platform, thereby increasing other real negatives like cost, production time, management, and upkeep, simply because you might in the future want to move to a different vendor maybe? I don't think so. You need to take this on a case by case basis, and unless portability is part of the current scope of the project, or unless the vendor is iffy, vendor lock-in doesn't matter. "And also, I believe we need to punish companies that allow lock-in to rule their products because it's not in our interest as consumers." Ok. Don't buy their products. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:28:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
