8 ms·

I don't understand Java apologists. I'm not saying Java is bad. Quite the opposite, it's one of the most optimized systems to date. But if you cannot admit Ja

by axaxs 6y ago

I don't understand Java apologists. I'm not saying Java is bad. Quite the opposite, it's one of the most optimized systems to date. But if you cannot admit Java apps are a pain to deploy, or, at least harder than deploying a static binary, I cannot take this argument seriously in good faith.

karmakaze 6y ago
To run a Java jar-with-dependencies you only need to `java -jar app-with-deps.jar` which isn't really that hard at all.
- axaxs 6y ago
  This skips the steps of choosing and installing a JVM, which is a bit daunting. My distro gives like 4 different versions. And worse, some applications only run on certain versions. By default, there is no 'java' command.
  - weego 6y ago
    That's not really a good faith argument. That's the equivalent of saying that a major problem with NodeJS is you have to pick which version to install before you deploy. I deploy single package jvm files most days having not had to consider the deploy environment for a about 4 years.
    - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
      It is a good faith argument — it’s literally the whole point. Native binaries bypass all of that.
      - Tsarbomb 6y ago
        Good luck when you need to deploy to a system with a different version of libc.
        splix 6y ago
        Also with different version of openssl
        femiagbabiaka 6y ago
        goalposts are moving at a rapid pace
        tamale 6y ago
        having a different version of libc is exactly like worrying that the system has a different version of java. If you know about these 'gotchas', they're not big deal. If you don't, then ya, they can be a bit intimidating at first. I really don't think running a go app vs. a java app is ANY different.
        femiagbabiaka 6y ago
        I’m trying to figure out what environments you’re working in where libc incompatibilities are as common as java versioning issues You’ve made a straw man and are now working very hard to defend it.
    - jooz 6y ago
      What is hard is not to choose the java version (1.8,19,...), but the JVM implementation. To choose between hotspot, openjdk, oracle. Even to find the download link without being forced to log in on oracle.com was difficult (in fact I couldnt find it the very last time).
      - npstr 6y ago
        Have a look at https://sdkman.io https://sdkman.io
      - Groxx 6y ago
        Why is it hard? Since Go gives you no choice, the equivalent would be to pick literally any, and make do with its defaults. Same thing for tuning. You do not have to choose optimally, that's an extra constraint.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      > That's the equivalent of saying that a major problem with NodeJS is you have to pick which version to install before you deploy. Are you saying this isn't a major problem with Node? In my experience it's a problem with every language that requires a separate runtime. The JVM is the worst of two worlds because I have the build complexity of an AOT compiler to make my deployment artifact and the deployment complexity of an interpreted language to get the correct runtime pre-installed.
      - Tsarbomb 6y ago
        You do realize Java has maintained it's backwards compatibility making choosing your deployment runtime significantly easier.
  - karmakaze 6y ago
    This is a question you have to answer once for your project. Similar to choosing which OS, database, library, or framework to use. There's no avoiding having knowledge or learning when choosing dependencies. Just about any of the implentations will work fine. You only have to concern yourself with avoiding use of the Oracle runtime in production without a license. If in doubt, install the latest AdoptOpenJDK[0] Hotspot version that's compatible with your app. [0] https://adoptopenjdk.net/ https://adoptopenjdk.net/
  - apta 6y ago
    You can ship the JVM with your app such that it's self-contained and system independent. Apps like IntelliJ already do this. And now with jlink, you can strip it down to make deployment sizes even smaller by only shipping the parts of the JVM that your app uses.
tiew9Vii 6y ago
They are really simple if done correctly. You have a single fat jar so can do java -jar myapp.jar which is almost as easy as your static binary but prefixed with two extra words. It’s also trivially easy to package as a docker image. What makes things like Zookeeper and Kafka to deploy is they are complex applications. You can write them in any other language and the deployment will still remain as non trivial.
- michaelt 6y ago
  I use Java for a living. Whether you think Java is very easy or a pain in the ass depends on what you're doing. Consider the fact Ubuntu 18.04's default repos come with a pretty ancient version of Java. And if you want a newer version, you have to use some third-party source. And the fact there are both OpenJDK and Oracle JDKs to choose from. Will that be JDK or JRE? Headless? Depending on the combination of JDK and software, maybe the fonts will go all funny. Got multiple JDKs? Some programs will use your default Java, some will invite you to select the JDK to use, some will bundle their own complete JDK. Oh, a program uses JavaFX? No, of course that isn't installed just because you installed Java. These problems aren't inherent to Java, of course - it's 98% due to Oracle's attempts to inconvenience people into paying for licenses.
  - PopeDotNinja 6y ago
    +1 for this. A headless install of Java is not straight forward. Doable? Yes. Pain in the butt? Yes.
    - elric 6y ago
      yum install java-latest-openjdk-headless There, you're done. Need fonts? Install fonts. Pain in the butt? Where?
      - bsaul 6y ago
        And now you have a separate intermediate runtime layer between your code and the OS, with its own set of versions, patches, regression, bugs, backward compatibilities, etc. that may or may not have an impact on the code that you intend to deploy (or redeploy). Statically compiled binaries are undoubtedly a plus regarding deployment.
elric 6y ago
Seriously? When was the last time you deployed something as a standalone, static binary? Hardly anything with any amount of complexity is shipped like that, especially not cross-platform. Just about everything requires some kind of runtime, some kind of dependencies or some kind of environment. I can go "dnf install firefox" just as easily as I can go "dnf install ant". Both of these come with a boatload of dependencies. One of them depends on a JVM, the other doesn't. Both are packaged pretty well and both can be installed in a single step. I indeed won't admit that "Java apps" are a pain to deploy, because it's a meaningless and overly generalistic statement. Some apps are a pain to deploy, but it's almost always down to the way they're packaged/distributed, and rarely down to the underlying technology.
- bsaul 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. Deploying static binaries was the main way to go before, and is now the standard approach with go. Pretty much every service developed in go is deployed as a standalone statically compiled binary, and i would assume it's the same for code developped in Rust.
  - Tsarbomb 6y ago
    Except you need to make sure you built against the correct version of libc because you cannot statically link that. I remember when docker first came out and people were losing their minds about how they will be able to deploy their applications with all their dependencies in a single shippable bundle, kind of like an uber jar.
    - touisteur 6y ago
      Isn't that what go is trying to alleviate, with their use of direct syscalls and no use of libc?
    - nitsky 6y ago
      Rust programs can be statically linked to musl libc, producing binaries that will run on any linux distribution. You can run ldd on the binaries and confirm they have zero dependencies on shared libraries.
stingraycharles 6y ago
The problem I have with your statement is that you do not elaborate on why it is such a PITA. Maybe you had some issues with a Spring web app? JavaBeans? I don’t know. The problem is that you’re making a broad generalization about all apps on the JVM, while to me it seems like this has more to do with decisions of the specific apps you were deploying. To go back to the original argument, why is Kafka ported from JVM to Go suddenly much easier to deploy? Is it really due to the JVM, or is it perhaps related to design decisions made while porting the application to Go?
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’ve deployed Java apps for years, the idea that I must “admit” to Java being painful to deploy in order to be taken seriously is laughable. Like any other tool, Java has its pros and its cons, but you’re being hyperbolic.
- gilbetron 6y ago
  Ok, you have a java app I want on my system, what are the steps I need to do? (I'm on Ubuntu 18.04)
  - splix 6y ago
    I guess you mean that Java 11 is not available on 18.04 by default, right? Java 11 was release in September 2018, so I guess Ubuntu 18.04, which came in April 2018, didn't have any chance to include it. Therefore you have to make an extra step to setup a ppa repo with software that didn't exist at the moment of release. Otherwise, at least with Ubuntu 19.04 which I have, it's simple `sudo apt install openjdk-11-jdk-headless`
  - apta 6y ago
    You can ship the JVM with your app such that it's self-contained and system independent. Apps like IntelliJ already do this. And now with jlink, you can strip it down to make deployment sizes even smaller by only shipping the parts of the JVM that your app uses.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      That’s the reasonable choice for consumer facing applications, yeah. For server applications it makes more sense to use something like Docker or a pre-built AMI. For what I do “how do I get Java on the server” is much less difficult than making deployments quicker and more efficient, which is more a problem for our CI/CD harness and integration tests. Neither of which are Java specific per se.
      - parasubvert 6y ago
devonkim 6y ago
It depends upon what you’re looking at in a deployment. Static binaries are the gold standard of “simple” in theory for ops folks but are not architecture neutral by definition. The JVM JAR spec is pretty well known as well and is not a surprise with plenty of documentation or blog posts to help out. Quirks do show up from crossing boundaries into native land like DNS and sockets behaviors, but a basic JAR does give some advantages over a random native binary in a tarball when it comes to dependency management which is tougher with a static binary. It’s not obvious which version of a library is compiled into a static binary at first glance compared to unzipping and checksumming the JARs in a package. There’s definitely some laborious parts of the Java packaging setup (the whole resources, meta-inf / manifest setup reeks of YAGNI problems) but similar to Go’s lack of expressiveness being a feature, the Java ecosystem is fundamentally designed for organizations that separate developers from the systems where the software is run, and this is either helpful or hurtful entirely depending upon the organization’s needs. I’ve never really had a problem deploying anything based upon the packaging - it’s a minor part compared to various obscure configuration files, ConfigMaps, or environment variable injections that bother me more, and that has nothing to do with a package or even language in itself.

by axaxs 6y ago

karmakaze 6y ago

To run a Java jar-with-dependencies you only need to `java -jar app-with-deps.jar` which isn't really that hard at all.

axaxs 6y ago
This skips the steps of choosing and installing a JVM, which is a bit daunting. My distro gives like 4 different versions. And worse, some applications only run on certain versions. By default, there is no 'java' command.
- weego 6y ago
  That's not really a good faith argument. That's the equivalent of saying that a major problem with NodeJS is you have to pick which version to install before you deploy. I deploy single package jvm files most days having not had to consider the deploy environment for a about 4 years.
  - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
    It is a good faith argument — it’s literally the whole point. Native binaries bypass all of that.
    - Tsarbomb 6y ago
      Good luck when you need to deploy to a system with a different version of libc.
      - splix 6y ago
        Also with different version of openssl
      - femiagbabiaka 6y ago
        goalposts are moving at a rapid pace
        tamale 6y ago
        having a different version of libc is exactly like worrying that the system has a different version of java. If you know about these 'gotchas', they're not big deal. If you don't, then ya, they can be a bit intimidating at first. I really don't think running a go app vs. a java app is ANY different.
        femiagbabiaka 6y ago
        I’m trying to figure out what environments you’re working in where libc incompatibilities are as common as java versioning issues You’ve made a straw man and are now working very hard to defend it.
  - jooz 6y ago
    What is hard is not to choose the java version (1.8,19,...), but the JVM implementation. To choose between hotspot, openjdk, oracle. Even to find the download link without being forced to log in on oracle.com was difficult (in fact I couldnt find it the very last time).
    - npstr 6y ago
      Have a look at https://sdkman.io https://sdkman.io
    - Groxx 6y ago
      Why is it hard? Since Go gives you no choice, the equivalent would be to pick literally any, and make do with its defaults. Same thing for tuning. You do not have to choose optimally, that's an extra constraint.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > That's the equivalent of saying that a major problem with NodeJS is you have to pick which version to install before you deploy. Are you saying this isn't a major problem with Node? In my experience it's a problem with every language that requires a separate runtime. The JVM is the worst of two worlds because I have the build complexity of an AOT compiler to make my deployment artifact and the deployment complexity of an interpreted language to get the correct runtime pre-installed.
    - Tsarbomb 6y ago
      You do realize Java has maintained it's backwards compatibility making choosing your deployment runtime significantly easier.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  This is a question you have to answer once for your project. Similar to choosing which OS, database, library, or framework to use. There's no avoiding having knowledge or learning when choosing dependencies. Just about any of the implentations will work fine. You only have to concern yourself with avoiding use of the Oracle runtime in production without a license. If in doubt, install the latest AdoptOpenJDK[0] Hotspot version that's compatible with your app. [0] https://adoptopenjdk.net/ https://adoptopenjdk.net/
- apta 6y ago
  You can ship the JVM with your app such that it's self-contained and system independent. Apps like IntelliJ already do this. And now with jlink, you can strip it down to make deployment sizes even smaller by only shipping the parts of the JVM that your app uses.

tiew9Vii 6y ago

They are really simple if done correctly. You have a single fat jar so can do java -jar myapp.jar which is almost as easy as your static binary but prefixed with two extra words. It’s also trivially easy to package as a docker image. What makes things like Zookeeper and Kafka to deploy is they are complex applications. You can write them in any other language and the deployment will still remain as non trivial.

michaelt 6y ago
I use Java for a living. Whether you think Java is very easy or a pain in the ass depends on what you're doing. Consider the fact Ubuntu 18.04's default repos come with a pretty ancient version of Java. And if you want a newer version, you have to use some third-party source. And the fact there are both OpenJDK and Oracle JDKs to choose from. Will that be JDK or JRE? Headless? Depending on the combination of JDK and software, maybe the fonts will go all funny. Got multiple JDKs? Some programs will use your default Java, some will invite you to select the JDK to use, some will bundle their own complete JDK. Oh, a program uses JavaFX? No, of course that isn't installed just because you installed Java. These problems aren't inherent to Java, of course - it's 98% due to Oracle's attempts to inconvenience people into paying for licenses.
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  +1 for this. A headless install of Java is not straight forward. Doable? Yes. Pain in the butt? Yes.
  - elric 6y ago
    yum install java-latest-openjdk-headless There, you're done. Need fonts? Install fonts. Pain in the butt? Where?
    - bsaul 6y ago
      And now you have a separate intermediate runtime layer between your code and the OS, with its own set of versions, patches, regression, bugs, backward compatibilities, etc. that may or may not have an impact on the code that you intend to deploy (or redeploy). Statically compiled binaries are undoubtedly a plus regarding deployment.

elric 6y ago

Seriously? When was the last time you deployed something as a standalone, static binary? Hardly anything with any amount of complexity is shipped like that, especially not cross-platform. Just about everything requires some kind of runtime, some kind of dependencies or some kind of environment. I can go "dnf install firefox" just as easily as I can go "dnf install ant". Both of these come with a boatload of dependencies. One of them depends on a JVM, the other doesn't. Both are packaged pretty well and both can be installed in a single step. I indeed won't admit that "Java apps" are a pain to deploy, because it's a meaningless and overly generalistic statement. Some apps are a pain to deploy, but it's almost always down to the way they're packaged/distributed, and rarely down to the underlying technology.

bsaul 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Deploying static binaries was the main way to go before, and is now the standard approach with go. Pretty much every service developed in go is deployed as a standalone statically compiled binary, and i would assume it's the same for code developped in Rust.
- Tsarbomb 6y ago
  Except you need to make sure you built against the correct version of libc because you cannot statically link that. I remember when docker first came out and people were losing their minds about how they will be able to deploy their applications with all their dependencies in a single shippable bundle, kind of like an uber jar.
  - touisteur 6y ago
    Isn't that what go is trying to alleviate, with their use of direct syscalls and no use of libc?
  - nitsky 6y ago
    Rust programs can be statically linked to musl libc, producing binaries that will run on any linux distribution. You can run ldd on the binaries and confirm they have zero dependencies on shared libraries.

stingraycharles 6y ago

The problem I have with your statement is that you do not elaborate on why it is such a PITA. Maybe you had some issues with a Spring web app? JavaBeans? I don’t know. The problem is that you’re making a broad generalization about all apps on the JVM, while to me it seems like this has more to do with decisions of the specific apps you were deploying. To go back to the original argument, why is Kafka ported from JVM to Go suddenly much easier to deploy? Is it really due to the JVM, or is it perhaps related to design decisions made while porting the application to Go?

ashtonkem 6y ago

I’ve deployed Java apps for years, the idea that I must “admit” to Java being painful to deploy in order to be taken seriously is laughable. Like any other tool, Java has its pros and its cons, but you’re being hyperbolic.

gilbetron 6y ago
Ok, you have a java app I want on my system, what are the steps I need to do? (I'm on Ubuntu 18.04)
- splix 6y ago
  I guess you mean that Java 11 is not available on 18.04 by default, right? Java 11 was release in September 2018, so I guess Ubuntu 18.04, which came in April 2018, didn't have any chance to include it. Therefore you have to make an extra step to setup a ppa repo with software that didn't exist at the moment of release. Otherwise, at least with Ubuntu 19.04 which I have, it's simple `sudo apt install openjdk-11-jdk-headless`
- apta 6y ago
  You can ship the JVM with your app such that it's self-contained and system independent. Apps like IntelliJ already do this. And now with jlink, you can strip it down to make deployment sizes even smaller by only shipping the parts of the JVM that your app uses.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    That’s the reasonable choice for consumer facing applications, yeah. For server applications it makes more sense to use something like Docker or a pre-built AMI. For what I do “how do I get Java on the server” is much less difficult than making deployments quicker and more efficient, which is more a problem for our CI/CD harness and integration tests. Neither of which are Java specific per se.
    - parasubvert 6y ago

devonkim 6y ago

It depends upon what you’re looking at in a deployment. Static binaries are the gold standard of “simple” in theory for ops folks but are not architecture neutral by definition. The JVM JAR spec is pretty well known as well and is not a surprise with plenty of documentation or blog posts to help out. Quirks do show up from crossing boundaries into native land like DNS and sockets behaviors, but a basic JAR does give some advantages over a random native binary in a tarball when it comes to dependency management which is tougher with a static binary. It’s not obvious which version of a library is compiled into a static binary at first glance compared to unzipping and checksumming the JARs in a package. There’s definitely some laborious parts of the Java packaging setup (the whole resources, meta-inf / manifest setup reeks of YAGNI problems) but similar to Go’s lack of expressiveness being a feature, the Java ecosystem is fundamentally designed for organizations that separate developers from the systems where the software is run, and this is either helpful or hurtful entirely depending upon the organization’s needs. I’ve never really had a problem deploying anything based upon the packaging - it’s a minor part compared to various obscure configuration files, ConfigMaps, or environment variable injections that bother me more, and that has nothing to do with a package or even language in itself.