More Java guidelines questions

Callum Lerwick seg at haxxed.com
Tue Apr 29 01:04:16 UTC 2008


On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 09:01 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> 2008/4/27 Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com>:
> >
> >  IMHO the only reason Java bytecode exists is to make it possible to
> >  distribute "run anywhere" proprietary software while keeping the source
> >  code closed.
> 
> No.  Even originally, that isn't true.

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

> Having separate source and
> binary formats gives you a lot of flexibility; for example you can
> compile source code that uses new features into an older bytecode in a
> compatibility mode.

... Which is completely moot if you're not distributing bytecode in the
first place.

> If you think the reason it's still around is just obfuscation, try
> using a modern decompiler.

Decompilers don't bring back comments or documentation. And commercial
joints protective of their source inevitably use a post-processor to
obfuscate class and method names (and possibly even more evil things) as
well:

http://www.google.com/search?q=java+bytecode+obfuscator

Technically, you can de-compile native binaries too. They're
reverse-engineered all the time.

> > Thus in an open source environment, Java bytecode has
> >  little reason to exist. If we're going to *distribute* compiled code, it
> >  may as well be nice fast native code.
> 
> 1) Hotspot does a fine job of creating native code.

Unless it's somehow faster than AOT-compiled native code, that's a
non-argument.

> 2) There are a *ton* of languages other than Java that run on top of
> the JVM that compile to bytecode.  JRuby, to name one.

Which are all as equally pointless as Java itself. My argument applies
to them as well.

> 3) It's simply not worth trying to go against the grain of the entire
> Java community here.

You're absolutely right. The FLOSS community standing up for itself and
going against the grain of closed source software? What the hell was I
thinking...

I rescind my argument.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080428/039e2690/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list