7 ms·

Will this push Google to move towards dart lang even more now?

by vijaybritto 9y ago

jsjohnst 9y ago
Wouldn’t Kotlin be the more logical route?
- kodablah 9y ago
  Doubt it if they still want the JVM. Sure Java the language is gone, but Kotlin on the JVM relies on the very non-Oracle-approved Java stdlib implementations that are at the root of this suit. If you want to argue Kotlin Native + NDK, sure, but it is very young (though I like it and have used it myself).
  - carussell 9y ago
    Today, Google is using the Oracle-approved form. They already switched Android from Harmony to OpenJDK in a previous release. Since then, this suit has been about (a) deciding whether Google is guilty of wrongdoing in the past, and (b) what the extent of the damages should be for that historical wrongdoing should be, if any. The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons).
    - kodablah 9y ago
      > The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android While most of your point is true, I disagree with this part. Using lawyers to tackle companies that succeed with only parts of your technology may send a chilling effect towards future uses. Also, knowing that you are not allowed to partake certain independent directions in the stack you choose for your devices is a legitimate reason to fear the continued use of that stack. Some are OK to them (e.g. conforming to the GPL on Linux) and some may not be (e.g. not being able to write portions of the stdlib without dealing w/ OpenJDK stewardship). I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
      - carussell 9y ago
        So you cut my comment off right at the part where I've pre-emptively addressed your entire criticism, and then you write out a paragraph detailing this criticism anyway because your position is contained squarely within the very part of my comment that you chose to leave out?
        kodablah 9y ago
        > (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons) > I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
        carussell 9y ago
        You don't get to define "for their own reasons" to mean something else just so that you have a something to argue about. Doing something for one's "own reasons" means that the decision is theirs to make, in contrast to being legally compelled to act in a certain way. It doesn't mean acting in a way that nobody else would, nor acting in a way that nobody else would agree with.
        kodablah 9y ago
        Ah, I took "doesn't really have any impact" as "doesn't really have any practical impact" instead of "doesn't have any legal impact". I thought you were making a point about it being Google's personal reasons they might justify moving on as opposed to reasonable ones based on precedence of the decision.
- vijaybritto 9y ago
  But isnt that based on Java again?
  - meddlepal 9y ago
    No? It runs on the JVM and Kotlin/JVM links the Java standard library as part of its class path and compiler emits JVM bytecode, but that's not the issue here. I feel like people do not understand what this lawsuit is about. There's also a lot of technical people here reading the decision and making tech-minded assumptions about the business strategy. A far simpler solution than reconstructing the entire ecosystem would be to just switch off Dalvik VM and use the JVM. The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. I recommend folks read https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-rewrite-a-java-openjdk-library-into-another-programming-languag/8224#8224 https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-... for a little background. In short Google fucked up big time.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      >The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. Um, no. The case has solely to do with the copyright of the SSO of 37 Java API's that Google used. This has nothing to do with their VM. >In short Google fucked up big time. On the contrary, the CAFC fucked up big time for allowing API interfaces to be copyrighted.
      - meddlepal 9y ago
        You read one part of a sentence and then ignored the other part. "It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation"

Will this push Google to move towards dart lang even more now?

jsjohnst 9y ago

Wouldn’t Kotlin be the more logical route?

kodablah 9y ago
Doubt it if they still want the JVM. Sure Java the language is gone, but Kotlin on the JVM relies on the very non-Oracle-approved Java stdlib implementations that are at the root of this suit. If you want to argue Kotlin Native + NDK, sure, but it is very young (though I like it and have used it myself).
- carussell 9y ago
  Today, Google is using the Oracle-approved form. They already switched Android from Harmony to OpenJDK in a previous release. Since then, this suit has been about (a) deciding whether Google is guilty of wrongdoing in the past, and (b) what the extent of the damages should be for that historical wrongdoing should be, if any. The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons).
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android While most of your point is true, I disagree with this part. Using lawyers to tackle companies that succeed with only parts of your technology may send a chilling effect towards future uses. Also, knowing that you are not allowed to partake certain independent directions in the stack you choose for your devices is a legitimate reason to fear the continued use of that stack. Some are OK to them (e.g. conforming to the GPL on Linux) and some may not be (e.g. not being able to write portions of the stdlib without dealing w/ OpenJDK stewardship). I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
    - carussell 9y ago
      So you cut my comment off right at the part where I've pre-emptively addressed your entire criticism, and then you write out a paragraph detailing this criticism anyway because your position is contained squarely within the very part of my comment that you chose to leave out?
      - kodablah 9y ago
        > (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons) > I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
        carussell 9y ago
        You don't get to define "for their own reasons" to mean something else just so that you have a something to argue about. Doing something for one's "own reasons" means that the decision is theirs to make, in contrast to being legally compelled to act in a certain way. It doesn't mean acting in a way that nobody else would, nor acting in a way that nobody else would agree with.
        kodablah 9y ago
        Ah, I took "doesn't really have any impact" as "doesn't really have any practical impact" instead of "doesn't have any legal impact". I thought you were making a point about it being Google's personal reasons they might justify moving on as opposed to reasonable ones based on precedence of the decision.
vijaybritto 9y ago
But isnt that based on Java again?
- meddlepal 9y ago
  No? It runs on the JVM and Kotlin/JVM links the Java standard library as part of its class path and compiler emits JVM bytecode, but that's not the issue here. I feel like people do not understand what this lawsuit is about. There's also a lot of technical people here reading the decision and making tech-minded assumptions about the business strategy. A far simpler solution than reconstructing the entire ecosystem would be to just switch off Dalvik VM and use the JVM. The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. I recommend folks read https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-rewrite-a-java-openjdk-library-into-another-programming-languag/8224#8224 https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-... for a little background. In short Google fucked up big time.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    >The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. Um, no. The case has solely to do with the copyright of the SSO of 37 Java API's that Google used. This has nothing to do with their VM. >In short Google fucked up big time. On the contrary, the CAFC fucked up big time for allowing API interfaces to be copyrighted.
    - meddlepal 9y ago
      You read one part of a sentence and then ignored the other part. "It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation"