4 ms·

I'm not talking perfect interoperability - I believe that substitutability should be the bar. Google produced something that is not substitutable in either dire

by yarg 7y ago

I'm not talking perfect interoperability - I believe that substitutability should be the bar. Google produced something that is not substitutable in either direction, so what I perceive as the reasonable fair use argument cannot be used here.

gpm 7y ago
What do you mean it's not substantial? People use the same java libraries on android and servers all the time, thanks to being able to use a shared standard library API (the supposedly copyrighted material in question in this case).
- yarg 7y ago
  Substitutable, and no it isn't. Google deliberately broke compatibility with java, its language and its packaging. From the UI perspective, there is actually a reasonable justification for limiting compatibility - but they went far further than what was reasonable. They did this to prevent applications executable on any JVM from running on Android.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    The JVM itself makes backwards incompatible changes. I have jars that work on earlier VMs, but don't anymore.
    - yarg 7y ago
      Sure, but I'm damned certain that's never happened with the destruction of interoperability being the goal in mind.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        The destruction of interoperability wasn't the goal in mind with Android either. Java ME sucked, and SE is somehow even a worse fit for phones. The fundamental process model destroys battery life, hence the switch in Android to that model that'll shut the app down basically at any time and allow it to save state, so it can come back to where it was later. In addition to that, an IPC system was added (which basically doesn't exist in Java ME), and a bunch of support for devices that are only accessible in Java via 3rd party libraries anyway. Oh, and the lack of swing. But come on, even Eclipse doesn't use swing.
    - sliken 7y ago
      Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual.
      - vageli 7y ago
        > Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual. I think that underscores the point? That even legitimate JVM versions were not substitutable for each other.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    You seem to be arbitrarily setting the scope for substitutability to Java as a whole, but why? Why can't it be e.g. individual classes, or even methods on them? Two pieces of Java code pretty much never need the entirety of J2SE API to interact.
ravenstine 7y ago
How is that supposed to be determined? By hiring more lawyers, no doubt.

by yarg 7y ago

gpm 7y ago

What do you mean it's not substantial? People use the same java libraries on android and servers all the time, thanks to being able to use a shared standard library API (the supposedly copyrighted material in question in this case).

yarg 7y ago
Substitutable, and no it isn't. Google deliberately broke compatibility with java, its language and its packaging. From the UI perspective, there is actually a reasonable justification for limiting compatibility - but they went far further than what was reasonable. They did this to prevent applications executable on any JVM from running on Android.
- monocasa 7y ago
  The JVM itself makes backwards incompatible changes. I have jars that work on earlier VMs, but don't anymore.
  - yarg 7y ago
    Sure, but I'm damned certain that's never happened with the destruction of interoperability being the goal in mind.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      The destruction of interoperability wasn't the goal in mind with Android either. Java ME sucked, and SE is somehow even a worse fit for phones. The fundamental process model destroys battery life, hence the switch in Android to that model that'll shut the app down basically at any time and allow it to save state, so it can come back to where it was later. In addition to that, an IPC system was added (which basically doesn't exist in Java ME), and a bunch of support for devices that are only accessible in Java via 3rd party libraries anyway. Oh, and the lack of swing. But come on, even Eclipse doesn't use swing.
  - sliken 7y ago
    Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual. I think that underscores the point? That even legitimate JVM versions were not substitutable for each other.
- int_19h 7y ago
  You seem to be arbitrarily setting the scope for substitutability to Java as a whole, but why? Why can't it be e.g. individual classes, or even methods on them? Two pieces of Java code pretty much never need the entirety of J2SE API to interact.

ravenstine 7y ago

How is that supposed to be determined? By hiring more lawyers, no doubt.