3 ms·

It wasn't really a java implementation - they used the APIs, but broke compatibility.

• falcor84 2y ago
  Oh, I wasn't aware of that - what did they change?
  • yarg 2y ago
    The ability to launch a jar?
    • kragen 2y ago
      to me this sounds like a claim that gcc on linux isn't really a c compiler because linux can't run a .com file compiled with turbo c for ms-dos
      • yarg 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_once,_run_anywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_once,_run_anywhere
• cxr 2y ago
  Geez, not this shit again. (One of the many ways you could tell Oracle was doomed in trying to find and convincingly argue a tenable position against Google: half the people half the time argued that Google should be sued for implementing Java, and the other half the time argued that they should be sued for not implementing Java.)
  • yarg 2y ago
    If you can't run jars, it's not a java implementation.
    • nineteen999 2y ago
      You mean zip files with a jar extension?
      • yarg 2y ago
        Yes the external format of a jar file is a zip - but there is also a specification for the internal structure and file formats, as well as information like the minimum java version required to execute (and all sorts of other crap, I can't really say since I haven't actually looked - these are just some sane enough minimums). But anyway, no need to be snide.