9 ms·

Note that they've only deprecated their own Java runtime.

by jdub 16y ago

martey 16y ago
I have not done Java development on OS X, but doesn't this mean that OS X 10.7 would not ship with a Java runtime? Wouldn't this have a negative effect on the ease of packaging and distributing Java programs on the platform?
- masklinn 16y ago
  > doesn't this mean that OS X 10.7 would not ship with a Java runtime? Not, but it does mean 10.7 may ship without a Java runtime: > This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X. The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products.
- krelian 16y ago
  Was Java that big on the Mac? Neither Windows nor most Linux distros ship with a Java runtime.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    It was a very long time ago (> half a decade, at one point it was almost on par with Obj-C as far as runtime-favoritism goes). These days, it's mostly fallen by the wayside
  - patio11 16y ago
    Windows may not, but most Windows computers do, because manufacturers put it there. This used to save me a lot of pain.
  - Corrado 16y ago
    Yes, at one point Apple made a big deal about Java being a "primary" language on the OS X platform. It had proper Coca bindings, Mac like look & feel, etc. Steve hawked it in one of the early OS X keynotes as being the future of the Mac platform. An easy language for all those that were confused by Objective-C. Several years ago Apple reversed their position on Java and have been ignoring it ever since. This is merely the last act in the Java play at Apple. Goodnight sweet prince!
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > Steve hawked it in one of the early OS X keynotes as being the future of the Mac platform That's standard practice. You make it easy to port apps to your platform until you gain traction and until your exclusive technologies do, then make it hard to port away from your platform by phasing out technologies that would enable that. A Java app that runs fine on OSX but that's easy to port to (or directly run on) Windows or Linux does Apple no good while an application written in Objective-C depending on the latest *Kit stuff locks both developer and user into Apple's walled garden. Their move from GCC to clang is no coincidence.
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > Their move from GCC to clang is no coincidence. Erm... what? Clang has already been ported to Windows (and other platforms). Their move from GCC to clang comes from GCC sucking goat's balls at error reporting and being integrated into an IDE. You might want to note Apple produces an IDE so that's kind-of a big deal for them, and a big reason for the existence of LLVM and related technologies (Clang, LLDB, ...) is very much that they can be used as libraries and easily integrated into tools. Seriously, you should be careful, your anti-apple-tag shows a bit too heavily in that comment.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        Clang/LLVM is BSD while GCC is GPL. That means Apple can extend them all they want without ever giving you, or their competition, any sources. If they ever perceive a threat from their competition, Clang/LLVM provides a lot more maneuvering space than GCC ever would. And yes, GCC is a very hard thing to integrate into tools and it's that way by design.
        lemming 16y ago
        And yes, GCC is a very hard thing to integrate into tools and it's that way by design. Any reference for that claim? This would seem to be an absurd design decision. It's more work to design this way but the benefits are enormous.
  - buster 16y ago
    Still it is installed on pretty much every machine i know, be it server, desktop, windows or linux. Like Flash it is most of the time one of the first 3rd party tool to be installed, i guess..
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    "Was Java that big on the Mac?" The precursor to Mac OS X, Rhapsody, had three environments, treated as equals: classic MacOS, Java, and OPENSTEP. Schematics here: http://macguild.org/rhapsody.html http://macguild.org/rhapsody.html Obviously, OPENSTEP/Yellow Box/Cocoa won out.
  - Naga 16y ago
    Windows and Linux don't ship with Java because they depend on Sun to produce the runtime. Apple produces it for OS X.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- nettdata 16y ago
  I'm sure they'll still ship with a JRE. The issue has always been that Apple has maintained their own JRE code base, while Sun had maintained all of the other JRE's for the other OS's. I've been doing Java dev on OS X since OS X came to be, and it's always had problems. Apple was constantly late in implementing features that were in all of the other JRE's, and it was a real pain to deal with across the different OS's.
- quux 16y ago
  Maybe it could be an optional install, like rosetta is on snow leopard.
masklinn 16y ago
On the other hand, is there really any other? For years, Apple has been pretty much the sole provider, and had their very own JVM with specific look & feel customization to the UI packages. The only real alternative is Soylatte[0], which is fairly purpose-specific. [0] http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/ http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/
- krelian 16y ago
  I don't own a Mac. Apple has been pretty much the sole provider, and had their very own JVM with specific look & feel customization to the UI packages. So was it their own separately developed JVM or just a bunch of additions to make the UI not suck on OS X?
  - masklinn 16y ago
    I believe it is Sun's JVM with OSX-specific customizations to make the UI suck less (it still sucked, generally speaking).
    - pmjordan 16y ago
      The Cocoa (UI) bindings were already deprecated sometime during 10.4/Tiger if I remember correctly.
      - lyso 16y ago
        However it isn't just the Cocoa bindings that are important. AFAIK SoyLatte's Swing/AWT elements run through X11. Apple's Java allows for Java GUIs without starting X11.
        pmjordan 16y ago
        Indeed, this will presumably affect users of Eclipse, Netbeans and similar. Not sure how many non-developer apps make use of those APIs, though, especially as they don't quite produce native look & feel. (still much better than X11, which is indeed terrible on OSX)
thibaut_barrere 16y ago
Real question: is there an alternate, well-tested Java runtime that someone would advise to use afterwards ? Sidenote: I can only imagine the guy who wrote "Java Deprecation" in h2 font-size 187%, jiggling inside at the moment he did. EDIT: I understand it's only a "possibility of removal", yet if I started working on a JVM-based app/product right now, I would be concerned.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Real question: is there an alternate, well-tested Java runtime that someone would advise to use afterwards ? Please carefully note the wording: > This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X. The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products. Java 1.6 will probably still be there in OSX 10.7. > Sidenote: I can only imagine the guy who wrote "Java Deprecation" in h2 font-size 187%, jiggling inside at the moment he did. It's a standard Apple style, so he probably didn't put the h2 187% size himself. Though he probably did giggle.
  - buster 16y ago
    I think "may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X" sounds pretty much like it is very likely that it will be removed.
    - masklinn 16y ago
      I don't think so. It makes it sound like if that's ever a bother, they'll drop it. But right now, they probably have the deployment architecture so no reason to ever remove it. On the other hand, don't hold your breath for an OpenJDK release from Apple. In fact, that's very likely the purpose of the move: they're warning developers they will not port Java 7.
      - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
mkempner 16y ago
Yeah I noticed that. Does that mean that Sun can start creating the runtime again? Does that also mean I can skip the hassle of going to Apple Dev center when I want to download the JRE?
JulesLt 16y ago
I think this comment is spot on. Their own bespoke XWin was replaced by X.Org in 10.5 - well strictly by XQuartz. The Apple Java runtime has already been moving closer to the standard Sun one (i.e. default renderer was switched over to Sun's a couple of versions ago). My guess is that we'll either see Oracle take back support for shipping a version, or Apple contributing to OpenJDK (like they do with X.Org) - having A version of Java available on OS X is necessary - but for the most part it is as a web server for developers, not for native GUI development - and it is the latter point where the differences are. (Also doesn't SWT use a different approach to the same native look-and-feel end?)

Note that they've only deprecated their own Java runtime.

by jdub 16y ago

Note that they've only deprecated their own Java runtime.

I have not done Java development on OS X, but doesn't this mean that OS X 10.7 would not ship with a Java runtime? Wouldn't this have a negative effect on the ease of packaging and distributing Java programs on the platform?

masklinn 16y ago
> doesn't this mean that OS X 10.7 would not ship with a Java runtime? Not, but it does mean 10.7 may ship without a Java runtime: > This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X. The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products.
krelian 16y ago
Was Java that big on the Mac? Neither Windows nor most Linux distros ship with a Java runtime.
- masklinn 16y ago
  It was a very long time ago (> half a decade, at one point it was almost on par with Obj-C as far as runtime-favoritism goes). These days, it's mostly fallen by the wayside
- patio11 16y ago
  Windows may not, but most Windows computers do, because manufacturers put it there. This used to save me a lot of pain.
- Corrado 16y ago
  Yes, at one point Apple made a big deal about Java being a "primary" language on the OS X platform. It had proper Coca bindings, Mac like look & feel, etc. Steve hawked it in one of the early OS X keynotes as being the future of the Mac platform. An easy language for all those that were confused by Objective-C. Several years ago Apple reversed their position on Java and have been ignoring it ever since. This is merely the last act in the Java play at Apple. Goodnight sweet prince!
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Steve hawked it in one of the early OS X keynotes as being the future of the Mac platform That's standard practice. You make it easy to port apps to your platform until you gain traction and until your exclusive technologies do, then make it hard to port away from your platform by phasing out technologies that would enable that. A Java app that runs fine on OSX but that's easy to port to (or directly run on) Windows or Linux does Apple no good while an application written in Objective-C depending on the latest *Kit stuff locks both developer and user into Apple's walled garden. Their move from GCC to clang is no coincidence.
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > Their move from GCC to clang is no coincidence. Erm... what? Clang has already been ported to Windows (and other platforms). Their move from GCC to clang comes from GCC sucking goat's balls at error reporting and being integrated into an IDE. You might want to note Apple produces an IDE so that's kind-of a big deal for them, and a big reason for the existence of LLVM and related technologies (Clang, LLDB, ...) is very much that they can be used as libraries and easily integrated into tools. Seriously, you should be careful, your anti-apple-tag shows a bit too heavily in that comment.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Clang/LLVM is BSD while GCC is GPL. That means Apple can extend them all they want without ever giving you, or their competition, any sources. If they ever perceive a threat from their competition, Clang/LLVM provides a lot more maneuvering space than GCC ever would. And yes, GCC is a very hard thing to integrate into tools and it's that way by design.
        lemming 16y ago
        And yes, GCC is a very hard thing to integrate into tools and it's that way by design. Any reference for that claim? This would seem to be an absurd design decision. It's more work to design this way but the benefits are enormous.
- buster 16y ago
  Still it is installed on pretty much every machine i know, be it server, desktop, windows or linux. Like Flash it is most of the time one of the first 3rd party tool to be installed, i guess..
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  "Was Java that big on the Mac?" The precursor to Mac OS X, Rhapsody, had three environments, treated as equals: classic MacOS, Java, and OPENSTEP. Schematics here: http://macguild.org/rhapsody.html http://macguild.org/rhapsody.html Obviously, OPENSTEP/Yellow Box/Cocoa won out.
- Naga 16y ago
  Windows and Linux don't ship with Java because they depend on Sun to produce the runtime. Apple produces it for OS X.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
nettdata 16y ago
I'm sure they'll still ship with a JRE. The issue has always been that Apple has maintained their own JRE code base, while Sun had maintained all of the other JRE's for the other OS's. I've been doing Java dev on OS X since OS X came to be, and it's always had problems. Apple was constantly late in implementing features that were in all of the other JRE's, and it was a real pain to deal with across the different OS's.
quux 16y ago
Maybe it could be an optional install, like rosetta is on snow leopard.

masklinn 16y ago

On the other hand, is there really any other? For years, Apple has been pretty much the sole provider, and had their very own JVM with specific look & feel customization to the UI packages. The only real alternative is Soylatte[0], which is fairly purpose-specific. [0] http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/ http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/

krelian 16y ago
I don't own a Mac. Apple has been pretty much the sole provider, and had their very own JVM with specific look & feel customization to the UI packages. So was it their own separately developed JVM or just a bunch of additions to make the UI not suck on OS X?
- masklinn 16y ago
  I believe it is Sun's JVM with OSX-specific customizations to make the UI suck less (it still sucked, generally speaking).
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    The Cocoa (UI) bindings were already deprecated sometime during 10.4/Tiger if I remember correctly.
    - lyso 16y ago
      However it isn't just the Cocoa bindings that are important. AFAIK SoyLatte's Swing/AWT elements run through X11. Apple's Java allows for Java GUIs without starting X11.
      - pmjordan 16y ago
        Indeed, this will presumably affect users of Eclipse, Netbeans and similar. Not sure how many non-developer apps make use of those APIs, though, especially as they don't quite produce native look & feel. (still much better than X11, which is indeed terrible on OSX)

thibaut_barrere 16y ago

Real question: is there an alternate, well-tested Java runtime that someone would advise to use afterwards ? Sidenote: I can only imagine the guy who wrote "Java Deprecation" in h2 font-size 187%, jiggling inside at the moment he did. EDIT: I understand it's only a "possibility of removal", yet if I started working on a JVM-based app/product right now, I would be concerned.

masklinn 16y ago
> Real question: is there an alternate, well-tested Java runtime that someone would advise to use afterwards ? Please carefully note the wording: > This means that the Apple-produced runtime will not be maintained at the same level, and may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X. The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products. Java 1.6 will probably still be there in OSX 10.7. > Sidenote: I can only imagine the guy who wrote "Java Deprecation" in h2 font-size 187%, jiggling inside at the moment he did. It's a standard Apple style, so he probably didn't put the h2 187% size himself. Though he probably did giggle.
- buster 16y ago
  I think "may be removed from future versions of Mac OS X" sounds pretty much like it is very likely that it will be removed.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    I don't think so. It makes it sound like if that's ever a bother, they'll drop it. But right now, they probably have the deployment architecture so no reason to ever remove it. On the other hand, don't hold your breath for an OpenJDK release from Apple. In fact, that's very likely the purpose of the move: they're warning developers they will not port Java 7.
    - Samuel_Michon 16y ago

mkempner 16y ago

Yeah I noticed that. Does that mean that Sun can start creating the runtime again? Does that also mean I can skip the hassle of going to Apple Dev center when I want to download the JRE?

JulesLt 16y ago

I think this comment is spot on. Their own bespoke XWin was replaced by X.Org in 10.5 - well strictly by XQuartz. The Apple Java runtime has already been moving closer to the standard Sun one (i.e. default renderer was switched over to Sun's a couple of versions ago). My guess is that we'll either see Oracle take back support for shipping a version, or Apple contributing to OpenJDK (like they do with X.Org) - having A version of Java available on OS X is necessary - but for the most part it is as a web server for developers, not for native GUI development - and it is the latter point where the differences are. (Also doesn't SWT use a different approach to the same native look-and-feel end?)