9 ms·

I have hard time being deeply invested in GraalVM considering that the most interesting stuff tends to be kept proprietary (e.g. profile-guided optimizations).

• amelius 6y ago
  Also, if you're like me, you simply don't want to deal with the law firm called Oracle.
  • pjmlp 6y ago
    What about the law firm Apple?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • oblio 6y ago
      Does Apple sue its customers?
      • pjmlp 6y ago
        Depends on how far people doing Hackintosh could be considered customers, and there are plenty of examples with Apple lawyers visiting the courtroom, but don't let that get into the way of hating Oracle.
        • saagarjha 6y ago
          No more than the people who pirate Windows, I would think.
  • rurban 6y ago
    And more worrying: Java, the language.
  • mumblemumble 6y ago
    That's the worrying thing to me. Oracle's business model seems to be to keep prices reasonable just as long as it takes to build up a customer base, and then start squeezing. I'm fascinated by GraalVM, but I'm hesitant to take even one step down a path that leads to Oracle using my actual software implementation platform to shake me down for money. I'd actually rather take the development effort and performance hit on using gRPC or similar to get my Java and Ruby modules talking to each other than to get locked into a potentially weaponized version of the Java platform.
    • qorrect 6y ago
      > weaponized version of the Java platform That was really sad to read. Oracle is really hurting the java language and ecosystem.
      • mumblemumble 6y ago
        Realistically, this isn't super new. After what happened to Dalvik 10 years back, and later to Adopt, one could argue that the Java Community Process itself, and therefore the very soul of Java, has been weaponized.
    • thu2111 6y ago
      Most of GraalVM is open source. If anything, their biggest commercial error may be open sourcing too much. GraalVM EE is quite expensive for what it adds over the open source versions.
      • dividedbyzero 6y ago
        Is there a summary anywhere of what parts/features are and aren't open source?
        • thu2111 6y ago
          Basically more performance and managed Sulong (blocks memory management errors in C/C++ you run on the JVM). And for native AOT compiled images, G1 garbage collector (which is itself open source but the integration isn't).
• pjmlp 6y ago
  Do you also have the same issue with LLVM, given the goodies that Apple, Sony, ARM and many others don't upstream?
  • cmkrnl 6y ago
    Good point, actually. At least for me, reveals a blind spot. Out of sight, out of mind.
  • rbanffy 6y ago
    That's the most wonderful thing of GPL'ed software - enforcing the no-selfishness rule.
    • pjmlp 6y ago
      Which is why Linux kernel and GCC are the surviving pieces, with almost everything else back to the PD/Shareware days. Even Linux Foundation's Zephyr is under Apache license.
    • pas 6y ago
      GPL is nice, but it seems it's a constant uphill battle - maybe after the GPLed thing becomes the standard things become slightly easier (economically upstreaming becomes cheaper than maintaining a fork).
      • rbanffy 6y ago
        If you are just using the software and not selling or offering binaries, it's not a concern. When you give back your improvements to the community, under any license, you free yourself from maintaining a separate fork.
    • thu2111 6y ago
      Java is GPL2 and LLVM is a BSD type license. So that appears to be backwards.
  • avasthe 6y ago
    Oracle is a law firm, others are technology firms.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]