Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sweet dreams are made of this... Message-ID: <199710141817.LAA22953@kithrup.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.971014094547.16712B-100000.kithrup.freebsd.chat@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.971014094547.16712B-100000.kithrup.freebsd.chat@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> you write: > >http://www.sun.com/announcement/letter.html This is, really, no real big deal, although Sun is trying to make it so. Sun is claiming a violation in their contract; they are, most likely, going to win, because they do get to say what goes in "Java." However, that doesn't make Sun *right* -- they've been looking for a reason to sue uSoft for a *long* time, and this probably thrilled them. Netscape reportedly doesn't pass Sun's conformance suite either -- and a good question is, does Sun's implementation pass Sun's conformance suite? What uSoft has done is not included a couple of classes, for their own reasons. That's not smart, but I can't fault them, really. Not a whole lot. The worst thing uSoft has done is to put some methods in the java.* hierarchy; this is very *stupid* -- Sun could easily put their own methods in with the same name, but different semantics. But, all reports are that these additional methods are marked as being uSoft-only, so no programmer should be misled. Of course, I also haven't fallen for the hype that is Java these days. It's interesting, but I dislike a bunch of things about it. It's better than C++, but, really, what isn't? :) And it is lacking in some respects, even when compared to C++. In the end, I predict that Sun will spend lots of money, and get a minor concession out of uSoft, and will hail it as a major victory.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710141817.LAA22953>