3 ms·

> MS tried to produce a Java with native extensions: Not exactly. MS replaced Java's existing native extension functionality (JNI) with Windows-only native hoo

> MS tried to produce a Java with native extensions: Not exactly. MS replaced Java's existing native extension functionality (JNI) with Windows-only native hooks called JDirect. Interestingly, it did so with these @com (EDIT: sorry, I meant @dll -- @com was related to COM hooks, which stuck around well into the .NET era as attribute hooks) method macros that, in a way, prefigured attributes in both Java and C#. EDIT: If by 'native extentions', you meant the WFC classes, then yes these were additions, not a replacement of JNI. But these were not part of the lawsuit per se. The suit focused on the removal of JNI and the corruption of the JVM spec with the JDirect functionality. > plus most of the features that Java programmers were begging for that Sun was sniffing at 'most of the features' is pushing it a bit. The only feature that J++ had over Java 1.1 at the time was method pointers (delegate). The lawsuit focused on those corruptions of Java: removing JNI as well adding JDirect and the 'delegate' keyword. This, according to the court, violated the terms of the license agreement signed by MS. Microsoft lost the lawsuit, and that was the reason they ditched J++ and began work on C#/.NET, which built upon many of the lessons learned in J++. I think otherwise MS's plan was to continue building an ecosystem around the MSVM not unlike what they eventually built around the CLR. It would be interesting to compare the MS/Sun ruling with the recent Google/Oracle ruling, as the terms of the two suits were rather similar. It would seem to me that the biggest difference there is that MS did in fact sign a license agreement with Sun that constrained the nature of their use of Java. Google did not sign any agreement, and I wonder if this was a calculated move on Google's part, in light of the MS/Sun J++ ruling. Considering the recent ruling by Judge Alsup regarding Android's similar adoption/modification of the Java spec, does this mean Microsoft would have stood a better chance by simply implementing J++ with no agreement from Sun at all? On my naive, IANAL reading of it, that would seem to be the case.

SiVal 14y ago
>> plus most of the features that Java programmers were begging for that Sun was sniffing at... >'most of the features' is pushing it a bit. The only feature that J++ had over Java 1.1 at the time... The Java-like language with no strings attached with the different name and all the new features that I was talking about was C#, not Visual J++. > Microsoft lost the lawsuit, and that was the reason they ditched J++... But that's not the reason they created C#. They created C# because they wanted a Java-like language (Java-like as in having the Java advantages over C++, not as in Java-compatible) without any limits on how good they could make it for writing Windows client apps. When they created J++, they were still assuming that Java was a juggernaut that they would have to cooperate with to some extent or get left behind, like HTML. Over time, it became clear that Java was fizzling out on the client anyway, so the need to cooperate was fading fast while the desire to create something that would actually be great for Windows clients was becoming overwhelming. After Java failed as a client-side alternative for creating Windows apps, MS was going to fork their own language, regardless of its name.

SiVal 14y ago

>> plus most of the features that Java programmers were begging for that Sun was sniffing at... >'most of the features' is pushing it a bit. The only feature that J++ had over Java 1.1 at the time... The Java-like language with no strings attached with the different name and all the new features that I was talking about was C#, not Visual J++. > Microsoft lost the lawsuit, and that was the reason they ditched J++... But that's not the reason they created C#. They created C# because they wanted a Java-like language (Java-like as in having the Java advantages over C++, not as in Java-compatible) without any limits on how good they could make it for writing Windows client apps. When they created J++, they were still assuming that Java was a juggernaut that they would have to cooperate with to some extent or get left behind, like HTML. Over time, it became clear that Java was fizzling out on the client anyway, so the need to cooperate was fading fast while the desire to create something that would actually be great for Windows clients was becoming overwhelming. After Java failed as a client-side alternative for creating Windows apps, MS was going to fork their own language, regardless of its name.