3 ms·
> The odds are much higher that your project will not be successful and so the choice of technology doesn't really matter. I'm very well aware of that. I would
by yaanoncoward 9y ago
> The odds are much higher that your project will not be successful and so the choice of technology doesn't really matter.
I'm very well aware of that. I wouldn't recommend anyone to give such what-if scenarios much weight in their technology choice without tangible concerns. Yet, Java is one of the few technologies where I find myself thinking about its legalese at all, so I wondered if others had the same thought.
I guess it's because there's now a good bunch of new programming languages that start to compete on Java's grounds and don't have such PR disasters like the Google-Oracle lawsuit.
To be fair: most of the technical reasons for me choosing Java are based on improvements that came to Java under Oracle's ownership.
- snarfy 9y agoI apologize as I wasn't trying to be negative by suggesting your project might fail. You should always use the best technology choice (for a lot of reasons). There was a recent HN post about over-engineering side projects, and the top comment was (paraphrased) "Over engineering is the point of a side project!". I think there is a counter if you want your side project to be successful, and that's to leverage as much technology as you can to make your MVP. Licensing costs don't change whether or not it's the best technology to solve the problem. That's why I wouldn't worry about it. There might be another promising JVM language you could use without the legal hassle, but if you've already determined Java is the best choice, the development costs of using something else will outweigh the legal costs.