More Java guidelines questions

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 05:50:34 UTC 2008


Callum Lerwick wrote:
> 
>> Sure, that was a good argument for pushing gcj in the past.
>> The question is should we focus on gcj or openjdk/icedtea now.
> 
> IMHO the only reason Java bytecode exists is to make it possible to
> distribute "run anywhere" proprietary software while keeping the source
> code closed. Thus in an open source environment, Java bytecode has
> little reason to exist.

Errr, what about applet downloads and RMI, neither of which requires 
similar architecture or compiling capability at the other end?  Are you 
sure you are talking about something that even resembles java?


> If we're going to *distribute* compiled code, it
> may as well be nice fast native code.
> 
> Yes I know what you're going to say, lots of languages, such as Python
> do bytecode as well. But they do it as a backend implementation detail,
> with no guarantee of stability and stored on disk only as a performance
> optimization, rather than an intentional mechanism for source code
> obfuscation. IMO we, the open source community, should shun Java
> bytecode.

It would be better to ship something that follows the spec, or call it 
something other than java.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list