4 ms·
Given the detail of the post RH put up, and the fact that many companies that aren't RH also voted against, I think the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate t
by lvh 9y ago
Given the detail of the post RH put up, and the fact that many companies that aren't RH also voted against, I think the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that politics are in fact involved. I disagree with a lot of what RH does, have no stake in any voting party, but unambiguously think Jigsaw can not go forward in its current state.
Releasing the JDK9 without Jigsaw enabled is not a major problem.
- specialist 9y ago"I think the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that politics are in fact involved." When has there ever been a technical decision made on the technical merits? It's always politics. Scratch that. It's only politics. Pieter Hintjens' telling of how RedHat spiked the process around AMQP shows that RedHat is no different from any other player. http://hintjens.com/blog:125#toc15 http://hintjens.com/blog:125#toc15 I had a brief flirtation with a standardization effort. Standards bodies are just another battlefield for belligerents. And I have no problem with that.
- lvh 9y agoBy that logic, literally anything Red Hat does is intrinsically bad. I did misspeak: I'll happily believe there is some politics, but that's not what I meant to say; the claim elsewhere is that it's purely or primarily politics. I've already argued that simply reducing it to "it's politics" is not a reasonable argument unless you can also explain why the RH technical detail post is really just a bunch of politics and not technical arguments, and if you can explain why all of these organizations that don't own a module system _also_ voted against.
- specialist 9y ago"anything Red Hat does is intrinsically bad" Not at all. I'm saying that politics is normal and good. I want RedHat, IBM, Oracle, etc to fight it out. Legally. -- Before replying, I took a step back, wondering what my position is. Here it is: This modules effort feels like generics. JDK 1.5 adopted the least objectionable, and therefore least useful, design for generics. The rationalization was "backward compatibility", then and now. The correct answer was to retool the JVM and JDK as needed to do generics properly. IMHO, Java has leaned too far towards backward compatibility. But what do I know? Java continues to do quite well, despite my objections.
- codetojoy 9y agore: feels like generics. Quite right. From Spec Lead, Mark Reinhold: https://youtu.be/fxB9cVNcyZo?t=41m50s https://youtu.be/fxB9cVNcyZo?t=41m50s
- justin66 9y ago> unambiguously You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- lvh 9y agoI appreciate it's not the best choice of words, but I'm an ESL, and there is certainly no ambiguity in my thoughts that Jigsaw is a bad idea and can't move forward as is.