LWN: Comments on "A proposal for a free Java implementation"

Not an option for many platforms

hazelsct — Sun, 15 May 2005 14:28:08 +0000

This only works on Sun-blessed platforms. And given recent experience with other closed systems related to the kernel, I'm amazed anyone would consider this an option. (No, Sun probably won't pull everyone's license to use the free-beer JVM, but they will likely make it run faster on their own platforms than others', and have little to no incentive to make it run on, say, Debian Alpha.)

Seems to be about licensing (???)

angdraug — Wed, 11 May 2005 15:05:44 +0000

Yes, that's my impression, too. Take a look at the Geronimo and JBoss story for approximation of the likely outcome of supposed Apache's Project Harmony vs. GNU Classpath&Co collaboration.

A free Java implementation is a good thing

man_ls — Wed, 11 May 2005 09:57:58 +0000

Some of us are even paid to use the language, and would very much prefer to use a free implementation at work, if it was available.

This all just support's Sun's key premise:

skybrian — Wed, 11 May 2005 07:38:23 +0000

A basic Java development environment is actually pretty simple. Download the Sun JDK and run
either Eclipse or buy IntelliJ.

No, it's not open source, but that's what most Java developers do. While gcj, Kaffe, and so on will
hopefully be useful someday, they're not really ready for prime time and aren't used much yet
except for reasons of ideology.

A(nother) proposal for a free Java implementation

skybrian — Wed, 11 May 2005 07:21:12 +0000

You're certainly welcome not to use it yourself, but you seem to be asking other people not to
use it. A lot of us happen to like it.

A(nother) proposal for a free Java implementation

kornak — Tue, 10 May 2005 05:37:11 +0000

I apologize if this is off topic, but, DUMP JAVA. Its has been measured and
found wanting. I see no reason to waste any more time with it. My 2 cents.

This all just support's Sun's key premise:

b7j0c — Tue, 10 May 2005 02:52:37 +0000

Sun has Sun for a long time that Java needs to be centrally controlled to ensure compatibility. All of these fractured efforts, with various levels of compliance, sure make for a muddy development environment. Do SableVM files work with Kaffe? Do Kaffe files work with gcj? Confused yet?

Sun isn't off the hook either, they have the same issues with versions of their VM.

Meanwhile look at Python and Perl. No code portability issues. The same runtime is ported to most any platform you want. To hell with open specs and closed implementations. The open implementations/write your own spec from studying the code type platforms seem to be fulfilling all of the WORA promises of Java.

And Sun a calling themselves pro-open source?

bk — Tue, 10 May 2005 01:56:58 +0000

Sun isn't pro-open source, they're pro-Sun. Obviously since there is a lot of people asking for free Java, there must be some value in Java. Therefore "giving it away" would be a poor business decision on their part, at least in the classic sense.

The only thing that will change this is to commodify the JVM by developing a free implementation. Then Sun will have nothing to lose by opening up their code. At that point, however, it will hardly matter.

Seems to be about licensing (???)

khim — Mon, 09 May 2005 21:32:21 +0000

I understand that the current free implementations (gcj/gij, kaffe, sable etc) do not support Java 1.5 features (parameterized types etc) but to me this doesn't seem like a call to recreate a Java-compatible environment from scratch.

Especially when GCJX is approaching alpha stage

And Sun a calling themselves pro-open source?

bojan — Mon, 09 May 2005 20:25:48 +0000

How can they stand by, seeing all this effort being wasted, and not release Java-proper as open source? There is nothing to lose for them and everything to gain (heck, someone may actually be interested in _fixing_bugs_ in Java for a change)...

Beyond me, just beyond me.

A proposal for a free Java implementation

mmarq — Mon, 09 May 2005 16:56:46 +0000

" We will create directly, via inclusion of independent third-party
code, or through contribution :

a) a freely implementable specification of a modular VM
and class library that allows for multiple, independent
implementations "

I belive that KUDOS fore these people is more than deserved.

And i wonder for sometime why? SUN havent done exactly that, putting everything under a community model trying to embrace the most of different implementations. That is, explore Java2( belive naming it Java3 wouldn't be unreasonable) under a similar business model as Trolltech do with Qt, where everything is a GPL compatible croos-platform framework developed under a community model, but if you want (or need) to link proprietary code you must pay a licence.

To pre-empt a lot of poorly informed comments...

sab39 — Mon, 09 May 2005 16:37:55 +0000

It does seem that there's a lot of uncertainty over exactly what the licensing issues are and how serious they are.

However, there has been an explicit promise by the Classpath developers that they WILL make clarifications to their license as necessary to alleviate the Apache group's concerns.

And there have been promises from the Apache people to identify and clarify their exact problems with the license in order to figure out exactly what clarifications, if any, are necessary.

In other words, the chances of NOT using Classpath are pretty slim. There's always the chance that there could turn out to be some major roadblock in the details of what Apache wants from the Classpath developers, but at the moment both sides are saying the right things (except in the announcement which has been apologized for). There are no plans at this point to start a new project from scratch redoing what Classpath already did. They're leaving that option open in case it turns out to be impossible to reach an agreement with the Classpath developers. But it's unlikely, since everyone recognizes how stupid and painful that would be.

To pre-empt a lot of poorly informed comments...

b7j0c — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:41:44 +0000

>> There are licensing difficulties to work out and it isn't 100% certain yet that GNU Classpath will be used

But you are just glossing over this topic like the original posters have. Specifically, what are the issues with Classpath involvement? This is the crux of the matter because using Classpath means you might see something released from this project in 2006. Not using Classpath means you will be waiting at least until 2008, because this is a lot of work with a lot of conformance testing and not everyone who works on Classpath is simply going to jump ship and add their expertise to this new project.

But as I have already said, this project along with the Perl6 project are just growing the Python developer base.

Seems to be about licensing (???)

b7j0c — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:37:58 +0000

From a quick read (correct me if I am wrong), the primary underlying motivator here is licensing. As far as I know, there are no major technical issues or problems with Classpath, so to reimplement this work implies someone with a serious itch to scratch reinventing a huge pile of code, or a gripe with licensing. I am mentioning Classpath specifically because that seems to be the meat of this project - it has been demonstrated by numerous parties that a somewhat-competent VM can be created in about a year or so. The Classpath work is a multi-year project, with some very tedious testing added on to ensure compatibility with the Sun J2SE.

This will be a massive project to be sure, I wish them luck...but its going to be years until we see something we can download and use if the messaging is correct - that they have no existing code they are working with. Look at the Perl 6 project...which has been going on since what, 2001? Four years later they are focusing on a hacked-up environment based on Haskell. While everyone has been recreating the universe from scratch (the "big rewrite" fallacy engaged fully), Python has been chugging along with a sound design, and no issues with a corporation granting/killing/suing rights and privileges (see, Mono, Java). Maybe thats why I see more people adopting Python everyday - its a known quantity with a known feedback loop and a known licensing/IP approach.

To pre-empt a lot of poorly informed comments...

sab39 — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:25:47 +0000

The authors of the announcement have admitted that it was poorly worded.

The intention is apparently not to compete with GNU Classpath and the other efforts but to attempt to identify ways in which both existing code and new, as-yet-unwritten code can be brought together under a common umbrella to provide a complete replacement for the J2SE stack.

There are licensing difficulties to work out and it isn't 100% certain yet that GNU Classpath will be used, but despite appearances there seems to be a lot of goodwill on both sides of the fence in an attempt to avoid duplication of effort.

The harmony effort could be considered slightly redundant - Kaffe and GCJ seem to cover a lot of the ground it's aiming to tackle - but it isn't as bad as the announcement makes it appear. It looks like there is an excellent likelihood that Harmony will become another part of the existing community of projects using (and contributing back to) GNU Classpath, and both sides will benefit.

A proposal for a free Java implementation

mjw — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:21:16 +0000

Kaffe, gcj, GNU Classpath and IKVM hackers do want to help out with this effort. Please read Dalibor his take on this from the point of view of the existing project in his diary.

More comments on planet.classpath.org