Callum Lerwick wrote:
Sure, that was a good argument for pushing gcj in the past.
The question is should we focus on gcj or openjdk/icedtea now.
IMHO the only reason Java bytecode exists is to make it possible to
distribute "run anywhere" proprietary software while keeping the source
code closed. Thus in an open source environment, Java bytecode has
little reason to exist.
Errr, what about applet downloads and RMI, neither of which requires
similar architecture or compiling capability at the other end? Are you
sure you are talking about something that even resembles java?
If we're going to *distribute* compiled code, it
may as well be nice fast native code.
Yes I know what you're going to say, lots of languages, such as Python
do bytecode as well. But they do it as a backend implementation detail,
with no guarantee of stability and stored on disk only as a performance
optimization, rather than an intentional mechanism for source code
obfuscation. IMO we, the open source community, should shun Java
bytecode.
It would be better to ship something that follows the spec, or call it
something other than java.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
