5 ms·

I bet the mono people are laughing their asses off now... I think Sun suing Microsoft was a mistake too for the Java platform... the write once, run everywhere

I bet the mono people are laughing their asses off now... I think Sun suing Microsoft was a mistake too for the Java platform... the write once, run everywhere ideology made Java the native platform of the server... write once, run everywhere should be the default, but it should be easier and encouraged to escape...

megablast 16y ago
Microsoft were destroying Java with their own implementation, which was not compatible with normal Java. They were changing the language, just as they tried to do with HTML in internet explorer and active-x, so we still see people having to use ie6. Sun had to sue Microsoft, before they changed Java so much it was no longer platform agnostic (or it was way less agnostic).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- MartinCron 16y ago
  I wonder what would have happened, though. Would the market decide that being platform-agnostic is more important than using MS dev tools? Would developers just have to work (around) with an incompatible platform, as they do with IE. I wonder if the MS rift caused more harm to Java than letting Microsoft change its implementation.
KirinDave 16y ago
I'm pretty sure the Mono people are worried. These patents are things that are fairly fundamental and important to any sort of mobile device that has competent security.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  No I'm pretty sure they aren't. The CLR is totally different to the JVM.
  - franksalim 16y ago
    I would say it is about as different as Dalvik is.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      In some ways the Dalvik VM is more different. Its register based for a start.
  - recoil 16y ago
    Google aren't using the JVM either, they're using the Dalvik VM. The alleged patent infringement may apply to just about any VM implementation.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      I know. I also hope they are using process level security, not class level security, which will completely bypass patent #1. Google people aren't stupid.
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    Read. The. Claim. And no, the CLR is not totally different from the JVM.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. I can access arbitrary memory in the CLR, but cannot on the JVM. I write as someone who has attempted to build a byte-code assembly file that would allow direct manipulation of binary arrays for the purpose of efficiently loading OpenGL vertex buffers that mix floats and ints. Cant be done in Java or in Dalvik (at least in 2.1). Easily done in CLR. Also, the handling of security and exceptions is different. I've also read all the JSRs with respect to this problem, related problems, generics, stack-based variables etc, and I'm also aware of the optimizations for stack-based elimination in 1.6 and 1.7. Also, I admit I only read the first patent, but I believe it doesn't apply to Android simply because the Dalvik VM does not apply its security at the object level but the process level, thereby nuking the patent. As for mono, I doubt they would worry since they would simply point out that "class" and "object" have been used for determining security access since at least Windows NT. Or mono can simply turn off object level security and rely on the OS to do it. The whole list is replete with holes and workarounds.

megablast 16y ago

Microsoft were destroying Java with their own implementation, which was not compatible with normal Java. They were changing the language, just as they tried to do with HTML in internet explorer and active-x, so we still see people having to use ie6. Sun had to sue Microsoft, before they changed Java so much it was no longer platform agnostic (or it was way less agnostic).

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
MartinCron 16y ago
I wonder what would have happened, though. Would the market decide that being platform-agnostic is more important than using MS dev tools? Would developers just have to work (around) with an incompatible platform, as they do with IE. I wonder if the MS rift caused more harm to Java than letting Microsoft change its implementation.

KirinDave 16y ago

I'm pretty sure the Mono people are worried. These patents are things that are fairly fundamental and important to any sort of mobile device that has competent security.

binaryfinery 16y ago
No I'm pretty sure they aren't. The CLR is totally different to the JVM.
- franksalim 16y ago
  I would say it is about as different as Dalvik is.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    In some ways the Dalvik VM is more different. Its register based for a start.
- recoil 16y ago
  Google aren't using the JVM either, they're using the Dalvik VM. The alleged patent infringement may apply to just about any VM implementation.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    I know. I also hope they are using process level security, not class level security, which will completely bypass patent #1. Google people aren't stupid.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  Read. The. Claim. And no, the CLR is not totally different from the JVM.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    You've not looked at them have you (the VMs)? The JVM is entirely a class-focused JVM. The CLR is a general purpose VM. I can access arbitrary memory in the CLR, but cannot on the JVM. I write as someone who has attempted to build a byte-code assembly file that would allow direct manipulation of binary arrays for the purpose of efficiently loading OpenGL vertex buffers that mix floats and ints. Cant be done in Java or in Dalvik (at least in 2.1). Easily done in CLR. Also, the handling of security and exceptions is different. I've also read all the JSRs with respect to this problem, related problems, generics, stack-based variables etc, and I'm also aware of the optimizations for stack-based elimination in 1.6 and 1.7. Also, I admit I only read the first patent, but I believe it doesn't apply to Android simply because the Dalvik VM does not apply its security at the object level but the process level, thereby nuking the patent. As for mono, I doubt they would worry since they would simply point out that "class" and "object" have been used for determining security access since at least Windows NT. Or mono can simply turn off object level security and rely on the OS to do it. The whole list is replete with holes and workarounds.