4 ms·

Google didn't forked Java

by Oletros 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago
Sure they did. Currently Android Java is a mixture of Java 6, 7 and 8, doesn't implement 100% of any of those versions, which fails the Java TCK with a glorious score. Both runtimes (Dalvik/ART) are still slower than industrial Java Embedded JDKs like J9 or PTC. All for not paying licensing fees to Sun.
- niftich 10y ago
  100% correct. Java 5-compatible libs tend to work most of the time, but not all of the time. To the casual observer, they both look and smell like Java, and copy-pasted Java code will probably work or be made to work, but the fact that not all libraries work in a drop-in setting make it pretty clear to developers that it's a rather distinct platform.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  >Currently Android Java is a mixture of Java 6, 7 and 8, doesn't implement 100% of any of those versions, which fails the Java TCK with a glorious score. Does Google call it Java? No, and you clearly know this. So why is there a need to pass the TCK? As for the TCK itself, you need look no further than Apache to see what a farce it is. >Both runtimes (Dalvik/ART) are still slower than industrial Java Embedded JDKs like J9 or PTC. I'd love to see the performance and resource usage of the JVM on a mobile device. You see, there's a reason Oracle failed miserably trying to build their Java phone.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > Does Google call it Java? No, and you clearly know this. Surely it does https://developer.android.com/index.html#q=Java https://developer.android.com/index.html#q=Java I see tons of references to it. > I'd love to see the performance and resource usage of the JVM on a mobile device. You see, there's a reason Oracle failed miserably trying to build their Java phone. I'd love to see Google fanboys accept the fact that Google has ripped off Sun of their work and brought fragmentation to the Java world with libraries that don't work on Android. Of course Oracle and Sun failed, Google gave their work for free to OEMs.
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > I see tons of references to it. Reference to Java libraries doesn't mean that Google calls it Java, and you know it. > I'd love to see Google fanboys accept the fact that Google has ripped off Sun of their work and brought fragmentation to the Java world with libraries that don't work on Android. I suppose that Java SE, Java ME and Java EE are compatible and they are not fragmented. Calling others fanboys? The argument you have is insulting? Are you saying that Apache ripped off Sun?
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        > Reference to Java libraries doesn't mean that Google calls it Java, and you know it. Microsoft doesn't implement C99, C devs bash Microsoft because they don't update the language. Google doesn't provide a proper Java implementation, it is ok they are on their right to fork the language. Java is the whole package, virtual machine, language and libraries. Anything else is a plain fork and word games to workaround licensing issues. "For more information about general practices to clean up your resources when programming in Java, refer to other books or online documentation about managing resource references." https://developer.android.com/training/articles/memory.html https://developer.android.com/training/articles/memory.html > I suppose that Java SE, Java ME and Java EE are compatible and they are not fragmented. Yes, since Java 8 there is a notion of profiles, valid across all certified implementations. Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them. > Calling others fanboys? The argument you have is insulting? Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle. > Are you saying that Apache ripped off Sun? They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they? The LGPL with classpath exception license was only valid for desktop and server deployments of Java.
        bitmapbrother 10y ago
        >Google doesn't provide a proper Java implementation, it is ok they are on their right to fork the language. Again, they don't call it Java so they can do whatever they want with it. >Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them. Good thing they didn't call their implementation Java. >Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle. It's kind of hard to side with a company with a reputation like Oracle and even harder for one that thinks it can sue for 9 Billion dollars for the partial use of a API's SSO. >They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they? They didn't call it Java so they didn't need one.

Google didn't forked Java

by Oletros 10y ago

Google didn't forked Java

pjmlp 10y ago

Sure they did. Currently Android Java is a mixture of Java 6, 7 and 8, doesn't implement 100% of any of those versions, which fails the Java TCK with a glorious score. Both runtimes (Dalvik/ART) are still slower than industrial Java Embedded JDKs like J9 or PTC. All for not paying licensing fees to Sun.

niftich 10y ago
100% correct. Java 5-compatible libs tend to work most of the time, but not all of the time. To the casual observer, they both look and smell like Java, and copy-pasted Java code will probably work or be made to work, but the fact that not all libraries work in a drop-in setting make it pretty clear to developers that it's a rather distinct platform.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
>Currently Android Java is a mixture of Java 6, 7 and 8, doesn't implement 100% of any of those versions, which fails the Java TCK with a glorious score. Does Google call it Java? No, and you clearly know this. So why is there a need to pass the TCK? As for the TCK itself, you need look no further than Apache to see what a farce it is. >Both runtimes (Dalvik/ART) are still slower than industrial Java Embedded JDKs like J9 or PTC. I'd love to see the performance and resource usage of the JVM on a mobile device. You see, there's a reason Oracle failed miserably trying to build their Java phone.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > Does Google call it Java? No, and you clearly know this. Surely it does https://developer.android.com/index.html#q=Java https://developer.android.com/index.html#q=Java I see tons of references to it. > I'd love to see the performance and resource usage of the JVM on a mobile device. You see, there's a reason Oracle failed miserably trying to build their Java phone. I'd love to see Google fanboys accept the fact that Google has ripped off Sun of their work and brought fragmentation to the Java world with libraries that don't work on Android. Of course Oracle and Sun failed, Google gave their work for free to OEMs.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > I see tons of references to it. Reference to Java libraries doesn't mean that Google calls it Java, and you know it. > I'd love to see Google fanboys accept the fact that Google has ripped off Sun of their work and brought fragmentation to the Java world with libraries that don't work on Android. I suppose that Java SE, Java ME and Java EE are compatible and they are not fragmented. Calling others fanboys? The argument you have is insulting? Are you saying that Apache ripped off Sun?
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      > Reference to Java libraries doesn't mean that Google calls it Java, and you know it. Microsoft doesn't implement C99, C devs bash Microsoft because they don't update the language. Google doesn't provide a proper Java implementation, it is ok they are on their right to fork the language. Java is the whole package, virtual machine, language and libraries. Anything else is a plain fork and word games to workaround licensing issues. "For more information about general practices to clean up your resources when programming in Java, refer to other books or online documentation about managing resource references." https://developer.android.com/training/articles/memory.html https://developer.android.com/training/articles/memory.html > I suppose that Java SE, Java ME and Java EE are compatible and they are not fragmented. Yes, since Java 8 there is a notion of profiles, valid across all certified implementations. Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them. > Calling others fanboys? The argument you have is insulting? Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle. > Are you saying that Apache ripped off Sun? They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they? The LGPL with classpath exception license was only valid for desktop and server deployments of Java.
      - bitmapbrother 10y ago
        >Google doesn't provide a proper Java implementation, it is ok they are on their right to fork the language. Again, they don't call it Java so they can do whatever they want with it. >Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them. Good thing they didn't call their implementation Java. >Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle. It's kind of hard to side with a company with a reputation like Oracle and even harder for one that thinks it can sue for 9 Billion dollars for the partial use of a API's SSO. >They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they? They didn't call it Java so they didn't need one.