Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by monocasa on Friday November 15, 2019 @09:16PM
(#21550530)
The JVM itself makes backwards incompatible changes. I have jars that work on earlier VMs, but don't anymore.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by yarg on Friday November 15, 2019 @09:52PM
(#21550668)
Sure, but I'm damned certain that's never happened with the destruction of interoperability being the goal in mind.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by monocasa on Friday November 15, 2019 @10:03PM
(#21550713)
The destruction of interoperability wasn't the goal in mind with Android either. Java ME sucked, and SE is somehow even a worse fit for phones. The fundamental process model destroys battery life, hence the switch in Android to that model that'll shut the app down basically at any time and allow it to save state, so it can come back to where it was later. In addition to that, an IPC system was added (which basically doesn't exist in Java ME), and a bunch of support for devices that are only accessible in Java via 3rd party libraries anyway. Oh, and the lack of swing. But come on, even Eclipse doesn't use swing.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by sliken on Saturday November 16, 2019 @12:40AM
(#21551221)
Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual.
Re:Supreme Court to Hear Google-Oracle Copyright Fight
by vageli on Saturday November 16, 2019 @09:00AM
(#21552648)
> Having jars only work with specific oracle JVM versions is not at all unusual.
I think that underscores the point? That even legitimate JVM versions were not substitutable for each other.