Re: Some more thoughts on Java vs Mono debate

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 08:16, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-03-30 at 10:13, Xavier Cho wrote:
> > Agreed. But don't you think it is a huge loss if we can't use many of
> > useful 3rd party libraries or tools built around Java or .NET for
> > compatibility reasons?
> 
> Definitely. Its equivalent to being able to program in C but not having
> 75% of the standard C library available. Anyone who had the misfortune
> to write C code on VMS can probably relate to exactly what it was like.

It isn't equivalent.  The C library is just a *very small* collection of
basic functions, many of which are raw wrappers over kernel calls or
provide services that Java/C# have built in to the very fabric of their
language.  The Java or .NET Libraries, however, are *fricken huge*, and
if we loose 75% of that, we still have many, many times the amount of
functionality (high level and low level) provided by C or even C++/STL. 
Most of the "legally iffy" stuff in Java/.NET are the things we're
*already* using external libraries for, like XML, web services, and
GUIs.  We aren't losing anything if we don't get those for free, since
we've never gotten them for free before - we've had to write and use
libraries like libxml, libsoup, and GTK+.  Heck, even talking about just
the C library functions, GNOME avoids pretty much all of it by using
glib, gnome-vfs, etc.

And to be honest, this is speculation.  Why are we wasting time railing
on Mono/Free JVM about how we will lose all these libraries when we
don't even know that yet?  Let's wait for some real legal advice, then
debate the languages on the actual problems and not multiple
re-re-re-hashings of pointless speculations.  (Yes, I'm just as guilty
of this as anyone else, this very mail being proof.  ~,^  )

-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.