3 ms·
This sounds like you read Jonathan Schwartz's testimony and almost misinterpreted it. The license included using Java's name and trademark and that was for Sun
by BoorishBears 6y ago
This sounds like you read Jonathan Schwartz's testimony and almost misinterpreted it.
The license included using Java's name and trademark and that was for Sun's benefit, not Google. Google wasn't asking to call it a Java phone. That's why part of the testimony is actually Sun saying they'd pay for that
And the rest of your comment is completely missing the mark here.
You're saying MS was in the wrong with J++ because they licensed Java.
I'm saying MS was in the wrong because saying you're using language X then randomly not supporting parts of that language is a shitty thing to do when you have a large presence because then you start to fragment the language's user base.
Copyright be damned. (Which is exactly why I said I wish they could have taken a different angle)
-
Logo or no logo, for years Google said you program Android in Java.
Their "Java" did not track the language everyone else knows, using a strange smattering of features from 6 and 7 in this weird hybrid that hobbled along.
As a result there was plenty of confusion among developers about what worked on Android. As someone who has mostly held day jobs that involved Android for a decade or so now, I can confidently say it was problematic and Android dragging its feet while being such a large platform caused people to avoid using language features.
When Lambdas first landed for example, I remember multiple projects refusing to use them since there was no official way to support them on Android (retrolambda which was written by a former coworker of mine addressed this)
This is so simple, Android should have licensed Java, created a compatible implementation, and kept it up to date. Would it have been hard? Yes. Would it have been better for Android developers who ended up using wonky work arounds, people learning Java and dealing with two sets of rules, and the Java ecosystem as a whole? Also yes.
- curt15 6y agoIf Android's "Java" is so different, then how does Google benefit? The whole point of reusing an existing language is to jump-start the app ecosystem by allowing developers to make use of their existing experience.
- BoorishBears 6y agoIt's just different enough to be damaging? Like in Java 7 days Android didn't support NIO, randomly didn't support certain forms of exception handling, had random holes in library support (core Java libraries mind you, not the sun stuff) The odds you could take a random XML parsing library for example and use it in an Android project were low. Random namespaces would be missing, cryptic errors tied to missing language support, the works. Like you realize the idea of having a kinda-almost-the-same language being damaging is already known. J++ was not the same set of circumstances, but it shows that yes, you can make a language similar enough to benefit and at the same time be different enough to damage. I mean literally QNX had better support through some vendor we were using at the time, but somehow Google couldn't do better?