News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by raganwald on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:42PM (#1998124)
"We have a strategy to promise that everything and anything provided that there is no firm specification or explanation and provided that we provide no date for implementation.

"This gives our customers a sense of security that if anything should happen to become important in the future, they will have purchased from a vendor that has a vision for embracing the technology even if there is no roadmap for actually implementing the technology.

"And although they may not ever end up benefitting from the technology, their careers are safe because they made a decision that, at the time, was prudent, namely to standardize on a technology that was thought to be on its way to becoming ubiquitous from a vendor that articulated a strategy for achieving ubiquity."

tl;dr: "F.U.D."

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by cemerick on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:50PM (#1998149)
Where is that from? That's not in my post, and not in the podcast transcript…
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by raganwald on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:55PM (#1998162)
Oh? Gosh, I must have misread it. I admit I was in a hurry, and what he said sounded so much like what other proprietary enterprise vendors say when promising vaporware that I got the exact wording confused.

UPDATE: Look, I am NOT making fun of your post in any way. I think it's fair game to poke a little at his comments given that there has been no other mention of this, no roadmap, nothing. But I respect your post and the fact that you pushed a little further and tried to find some corroboration for his statement.

I'd like to think that somewhere in Oracle-land, there's a white paper from the Sun days talking about this idea, and maybe they're even trying to make it fly right now. And good job teasing that out and asking some intelligent questions about what it may mean.

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by cemerick on Sunday December 12, 2010 @05:16PM (#1998232)
I'm hardly an Oracle (née Sun in this context) booster; i.e. as a Clojure partisan, I'm all too aware of the benign neglect that comes with using the JVM but not Java, and with vaporware (JWebPane, anyone?).

All that said, I'm happy enough to be Charlie Brown and take a run at this football. Cynicism leads to either resigning myself to using Javascript forever for client side stuff, something I just couldn't swallow psychologically.

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by aaronblohowiak on Sunday December 12, 2010 @05:37PM (#1998314)
Why do you hate JavaScript so much? You can thoroughly ignore all notions of classes and use it as a lesser scheme.
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by cemerick on Sunday December 12, 2010 @06:09PM (#1998416)
Javascript is a bad language with poor libraries, and I'm forced to use it. I've said before: if it weren't for its distribution, it simply wouldn't be used. If given other choices (emphasis on the plural there), not one developer would opt for Javascript.

"The good parts" of Javascript get a lot of play, but I don't want to have cope by using patterns and avoiding the dull, broken bits that go along for the ride...and I'm surprised that many (most?) other competent developers that wouldn't put up with such compromises in their "real" languages aren't as irritated about Javascript as I have been.

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by simonw on Monday December 13, 2010 @03:21AM (#1999819)
"If given other choices (emphasis on the plural there), not one developer would opt for Javascript"

How do you explain the recent widespread enthusiasm for Node.js, including from server-side engineers with little to no previous JavaScript experience?

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by somnium on Sunday December 12, 2010 @06:45PM (#1998524)
Some percentage of developers do choose Javascript among multiple choices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Uses_outside_web_pag...
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by detst on Sunday December 12, 2010 @07:22PM (#1998620)
Stockholm syndrome?
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by sedachv on Sunday December 12, 2010 @08:28PM (#1998810)
"Javascript is a bad language with poor libraries, and I'm forced to use it."

The same can be said for any programming language that you don't like.

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by jpr on Monday December 13, 2010 @04:02AM (#1999888)
No it can't. Browser is pretty much the only platform where you have to use a certain language.
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by sedachv on Monday December 13, 2010 @12:02PM (#2001071)
I suppose you've never had to work a day job at a "real" company before?
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by p_nathan on Sunday December 12, 2010 @07:22PM (#1998622)
agreed - it was initially developed in about 10 days of caffeine, and it shows.

gorram it, jwz.

Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by dpritchett on Sunday December 12, 2010 @07:28PM (#1998637)
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by p_nathan on Sunday December 12, 2010 @10:41PM (#1999187)
doh, ja
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by martincmartin on Sunday December 12, 2010 @05:02PM (#1998178)
He's being sarcastic. He's paraphrasing.
Re:Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javas... by earl on Sunday December 12, 2010 @05:19PM (#1998249)
I am aware of all internet traditions