4 ms·

It's true, but in practice Oracle's Hotspot is used in overwhelming majority of deployments you will get to work on.

by bitcharmer 8y ago

pjmlp 8y ago
Not when you work with corporations that love Websphere, embedded deployments or that little fork known as Android.
- jxub 8y ago
  I recently attended a talk with Simon Ritter from Azul Systems that is developing Zing VM, and this VM is apparently gaining adoption among financial companies thanks to improved startup time and novel GC algorithms. Anyone with first hand production experience?
  - cmclaughlin 8y ago
    We use it at my job for our main api which needs lots of memory. I’m on the devops side and I don’t get into it much past the deployment of the app, so from my side it’s more of a hassle than openjdk since we have to deal with licensing.
  - yazr 8y ago
    Yes. Used in production HFT system. Works as advertised. But you should try the new J8 GC algos before you try a whole new VM
- bitmapbrother 8y ago
  Android is not a fork of the JVM as it doesn't use the JVM. You seem to keep on parroting this fallacy.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Android started by copying Apache Harmony, as means of Google trying to avoid to pay Sun their rightful licenses, as confirmed by Andy Rubin emails. Thanks to that, Sun lost what might have rescued from insolvency. Which Google, while thinking that they finally got rid of Sun did not bothered to try to save. After the lawsuit and IBM's move to sponsor OpenJDK, Google was forced to migrate to OpenJDK. Yet Android does not use 100% of OpenJDK, rather they are adding little pieces of it in each Android version. Thus Android uses a forked version of OpenJDK, with everything that Google doesn't care removed from it. The fact that they use ART is an implementation detail, some Java certified JVMs for embeded deployment also have tooling to convert to their optimized implementation instead of using .class files. Rest assured, I am quite good parroting.
    - bitmapbrother 8y ago
      >Android started by copying Apache Harmony, as means of Google trying to avoid to pay Sun their rightful licenses, as confirmed by Andy Rubin emails. The Apache Harmony code base is an open source, free Java implementation, developed by the Apache Software Foundation that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Google had every right to use the Apache project according to the terms of the license. >Thanks to that, Sun lost what might have rescued from insolvency. Which Google, while thinking that they finally got rid of Sun did not bothered to try to save. Sun is solely responsible for their bad business decisions due, in most part, to their incompetence. Issuing a license to Google would not have saved them from being acquired by Oracle. >Yet Android does not use 100% of OpenJDK, rather they are adding little pieces of it in each Android version. I wasn't aware that you had to implement 100% of an open source project if you forked it. Can you cite where that's a requirement? >Thus Android uses a forked version of OpenJDK, with everything that Google doesn't care removed from it. The Android SDK uses a forked subset of the OpenJDK. And why wouldn't Google remove things they didn't need like AWT, Swing, etc. >The fact that they use ART is an implementation detail, some Java certified JVMs for embeded deployment also have tooling to convert to their optimized implementation instead of using .class files. No it's not. There is no association architecturally or IP related between the JVM and ART. If there was then Oracle would not have lost every one of their JVM IP patent claims they asserted against the Android runtime.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        > The Apache Harmony code base is an open source, free Java implementation, developed by the Apache Software Foundation that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Google had every right to use the Apache project according to the terms of the license. Except it wasn't a TCK project licensed for deployment on embedded devices. > Sun is solely responsible for their bad business decisions due, in most part, to their incompetence. Issuing a license to Google would not have saved them from being acquired by Oracle. Says the Google employee. Why did not Google buy the Java assets from Sun, given the deep investment on Android? Because they hoped Sun would silently sink and stop being a thorn on Google's misconduct. Instead Sun got bought by Oracle, so stop complained, had Google bought Sun instead this would have neved happened. > I wasn't aware that you had to implement 100% of an open source project if you forked it. Can you cite where that's a requirement? Ah now you state that Google did fork Java. > The Android SDK uses a forked subset of the OpenJDK. And why wouldn't Google remove things they didn't need like AWT, Swing, etc. Because OpenJDK is to Java like libc is to C, libc++ to C++, DOM APIs to JavaScript, .... Forking while pruning the available API breaks the compatibility with existing code and fragments the eco-system. Exactly what Sun managed to prevent with J++, whereas with Android Java they were a bit low on cash. > No it's not. There is no association architecturally or IP related between the JVM and ART. If there was then Oracle would not have lost every one of their JVM IP patent claims they asserted against the Android runtime. Whatever Oracle has chosen as attack vector is little relevant for the fact that I cannot take a random piece of Java code and be assured it compiles and runs on Android. If Google really wanted to drive Java somewhere else, while breaking backwards compatibility, the solution was in reach of their bank account when Sun started looking for buyers.

It's true, but in practice Oracle's Hotspot is used in overwhelming majority of deployments you will get to work on.

pjmlp 8y ago

Not when you work with corporations that love Websphere, embedded deployments or that little fork known as Android.

jxub 8y ago
I recently attended a talk with Simon Ritter from Azul Systems that is developing Zing VM, and this VM is apparently gaining adoption among financial companies thanks to improved startup time and novel GC algorithms. Anyone with first hand production experience?
- cmclaughlin 8y ago
  We use it at my job for our main api which needs lots of memory. I’m on the devops side and I don’t get into it much past the deployment of the app, so from my side it’s more of a hassle than openjdk since we have to deal with licensing.
- yazr 8y ago
  Yes. Used in production HFT system. Works as advertised. But you should try the new J8 GC algos before you try a whole new VM
bitmapbrother 8y ago
Android is not a fork of the JVM as it doesn't use the JVM. You seem to keep on parroting this fallacy.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Android started by copying Apache Harmony, as means of Google trying to avoid to pay Sun their rightful licenses, as confirmed by Andy Rubin emails. Thanks to that, Sun lost what might have rescued from insolvency. Which Google, while thinking that they finally got rid of Sun did not bothered to try to save. After the lawsuit and IBM's move to sponsor OpenJDK, Google was forced to migrate to OpenJDK. Yet Android does not use 100% of OpenJDK, rather they are adding little pieces of it in each Android version. Thus Android uses a forked version of OpenJDK, with everything that Google doesn't care removed from it. The fact that they use ART is an implementation detail, some Java certified JVMs for embeded deployment also have tooling to convert to their optimized implementation instead of using .class files. Rest assured, I am quite good parroting.
  - bitmapbrother 8y ago
    >Android started by copying Apache Harmony, as means of Google trying to avoid to pay Sun their rightful licenses, as confirmed by Andy Rubin emails. The Apache Harmony code base is an open source, free Java implementation, developed by the Apache Software Foundation that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Google had every right to use the Apache project according to the terms of the license. >Thanks to that, Sun lost what might have rescued from insolvency. Which Google, while thinking that they finally got rid of Sun did not bothered to try to save. Sun is solely responsible for their bad business decisions due, in most part, to their incompetence. Issuing a license to Google would not have saved them from being acquired by Oracle. >Yet Android does not use 100% of OpenJDK, rather they are adding little pieces of it in each Android version. I wasn't aware that you had to implement 100% of an open source project if you forked it. Can you cite where that's a requirement? >Thus Android uses a forked version of OpenJDK, with everything that Google doesn't care removed from it. The Android SDK uses a forked subset of the OpenJDK. And why wouldn't Google remove things they didn't need like AWT, Swing, etc. >The fact that they use ART is an implementation detail, some Java certified JVMs for embeded deployment also have tooling to convert to their optimized implementation instead of using .class files. No it's not. There is no association architecturally or IP related between the JVM and ART. If there was then Oracle would not have lost every one of their JVM IP patent claims they asserted against the Android runtime.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      > The Apache Harmony code base is an open source, free Java implementation, developed by the Apache Software Foundation that is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Google had every right to use the Apache project according to the terms of the license. Except it wasn't a TCK project licensed for deployment on embedded devices. > Sun is solely responsible for their bad business decisions due, in most part, to their incompetence. Issuing a license to Google would not have saved them from being acquired by Oracle. Says the Google employee. Why did not Google buy the Java assets from Sun, given the deep investment on Android? Because they hoped Sun would silently sink and stop being a thorn on Google's misconduct. Instead Sun got bought by Oracle, so stop complained, had Google bought Sun instead this would have neved happened. > I wasn't aware that you had to implement 100% of an open source project if you forked it. Can you cite where that's a requirement? Ah now you state that Google did fork Java. > The Android SDK uses a forked subset of the OpenJDK. And why wouldn't Google remove things they didn't need like AWT, Swing, etc. Because OpenJDK is to Java like libc is to C, libc++ to C++, DOM APIs to JavaScript, .... Forking while pruning the available API breaks the compatibility with existing code and fragments the eco-system. Exactly what Sun managed to prevent with J++, whereas with Android Java they were a bit low on cash. > No it's not. There is no association architecturally or IP related between the JVM and ART. If there was then Oracle would not have lost every one of their JVM IP patent claims they asserted against the Android runtime. Whatever Oracle has chosen as attack vector is little relevant for the fact that I cannot take a random piece of Java code and be assured it compiles and runs on Android. If Google really wanted to drive Java somewhere else, while breaking backwards compatibility, the solution was in reach of their bank account when Sun started looking for buyers.