PDA

View Full Version : No Java 6 on Leopard Retail!!




rpp3po
Oct 25, 2007, 03:56 PM
I totally agree with this guy:

http://javablasphemy.blogspot.com



janey
Oct 25, 2007, 05:17 PM
It's been speculation and fact for a while now, and nothing particularly new (albeit somewhat infuriating).

I'm sure everyone saw this coming if they read about Gosling giving up his mac for Solaris. Damn.

Sayer
Oct 25, 2007, 06:13 PM
Why should Apple expend significant resources to port over a third (in addition to Carbon and Cocoa) application framework when the market for such is so small even compared to Carbon?

Based on the new Ruby/Python/Scripting bridge support, I think Apple is smartly focusing on where the action is *now*, not on a third-party app framework that is so clunky and has massive overhead.

Even Adobe made its Aperture competitor using a scripting language for the UI (Lua or whatever it was called).

janey
Oct 25, 2007, 06:34 PM
Why should Apple expend significant resources to port over a third (in addition to Carbon and Cocoa) application framework when the market for such is so small even compared to Carbon?

I think it would not be mistaken to say Apple's put more work into Java 5 on Leopard than they have into Carbon for Leopard. The market is NOT small at all. Apple just seems to have some twisted reason for doing what they are that makes absolutely no sense (to me). Not even your (IMO) absurd reasoning that Apple should be focusing more in Ruby/Python/...

rpp3po
Oct 25, 2007, 06:37 PM
Why should Apple expend significant resources to port over a third (in addition to Carbon and Cocoa) application framework when the market for such is so small even compared to Carbon?

I think you have said enough to disqualify yourself. Java revenue in the corporate SOA space alone surpasses Carbon multiple times. The corporate world doesn't jump onto every bandwagon, there have been to many. Tell me one Fortune 500 which uses Ruby or Python for central, mission critical services. There are 1000's on the Java side. It is rock solid, provides excellent scaling capabilities, easy and excellent threading support (ever used ThreadPoolExecutor?), high performance, asynchronous I/O, and important enteprise capabilities built in. Try to accomplish what Java Enterprise beans do for you with a few lines of code coordinating a distributed transaction from Tokio, Singapur and Rome with Ruby or Python. Easy for quick stuff, which surely has many important uses. But for anything bigger, toys....

Alloye
Oct 25, 2007, 07:08 PM
Even though I'm not a Java developer myself, I think it's a shame Leopard didn't ship with Java 6. Java is still a very important platform despite the inroads made by other solutions.

MacFan26
Oct 25, 2007, 09:47 PM
I think that was a pretty bold thing for Gosling to say/do, but whatever... There have been rumors about Java 6 being released for Leopard soon, and I'd rather wait and see what happens with that first before giving up on Java on the Mac. If they don't manage to get 6 out with Leopard, well that will make me sad...

fly75
Oct 25, 2007, 10:38 PM
Tell me one Fortune 500 which uses Ruby or Python for central, mission critical services. There are 1000's on the Java side.

Thousands of Fortune 500 companies?:eek:

Name one that uses Java on the Mac to implement central, mission critical services.

Hell, I'd be surprised if any of them that are committed to using Java have rolled Java 6 into production yet, given SOX.

Great Dave
Oct 25, 2007, 10:53 PM
I think it is ridiculous, too. Apple is almost a year behind Windows and Linux.

As a couple people have commented :

"At a WWDC, Jobs said "We will make the best platform for Java Developers!""

And "The big thing Apple have failed to notice is how many CS courses use Java as their main teaching language.

No up-to-date Java on Macs => fewer purchases of Macs by CS departments

Fewer Macs in CS departments => less software written for Macs"

I hope that Apple will soon release both Java 6 and full zfs support.

prostuff1
Oct 25, 2007, 11:09 PM
I think it is ridiculous, too. Apple is almost a year behind Windows and Linux.

As a couple people have commented :

"At a WWDC, Jobs said "We will make the best platform for Java Developers!""

And "The big thing Apple have failed to notice is how many CS courses use Java as their main teaching language.

No up-to-date Java on Macs => fewer purchases of Macs by CS departments

Fewer Macs in CS departments => less software written for Macs"

I hope that Apple will soon release both Java 6 and full zfs support.


This is very true. When i took my first programming class it was a java class. The thing was they were using java 5 for all the hw assignment. Needless to say, at the time OS X did not come standard with java 5. Being a CSE student i did not have a problem finding java 5 preview to install on the mac, but it was discouraging to say least when i had to search and install "extra" stuff to stay up-to-date with the windows side.

It would be nice to see apple keep up to date with java more and bring back the bridge to cocoa as i think java is quite a nice programming language. But i am kinda bias as it is really the only "real" language I have used for my programming classes.

CANEHDN
Oct 25, 2007, 11:13 PM
Java is definitely a beneficial language. Being able to port it to any OS, use it in web browsers with little to no tweaking is huge. I'm surprised Apple hasn't included 6 in Leopard. They also may be waiting for version 6 to become more of standard and taking their time implementing it correctly on Leopard. Making sure it works more seamlessly when porting from different OSs.

janey
Oct 26, 2007, 03:34 AM
Java is definitely a beneficial language. Being able to port it to any OS, use it in web browsers with little to no tweaking is huge. I'm surprised Apple hasn't included 6 in Leopard. They also may be waiting for version 6 to become more of standard and taking their time implementing it correctly on Leopard. Making sure it works more seamlessly when porting from different OSs.
I can't be the only person who remembers the version timeline. Java 6 officially has been out, excluding previews and betas, since December of last year. If we include the whole process, it started back in February 2006 (see jsr 270 (http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=270)). That link also shows final release as December 11, 2006. It's been over 10 months, and it's not like the final version was a complete surprise to anyone.

At the rate Apple seems to love going at, I'm sure Java 7 will be floating around in beta form by the time we get 6.

That is one HELL of a delay. Meanwhile, Apple's just been adding stuff to Java 5. That's pretty freaking pathetic for a company that seems so dedicated..on the outside...to Java devs..or at least they like proclaiming things without following up on them. Meanwhile they're sucking up to all the Rails people who are so hyped over the fact that Rails/Mongrel/Capistrano are built into Leopard.

It's not just schools with Java classes, which I'd fall under, which I'd love to have the latest version of if we're going to be talking about new language features (yeah, imagine my embarrassment when Apple pulled this same **** with 5). People aren't going to be jumping to use newer versions of Java, but as the windows/linux versions progress and those users update and your average Mac user is stuck with whatever comes with the computer (read: something old), I wouldn't be TOO shocked to see frustrated developers. I mean, there's already plenty right now. More to come. Yay.

Persifleur
Oct 26, 2007, 05:43 AM
There have been several hints that Java is of decreasing importance with Apple. The long delay in updating the developer preview of SE 6, even before Leopard (which is now no longer linked from the downloads page). The discontinuation of development on the Java-Cocoa bridge. Steve's comments when discussing Java on iPhone. ("Javaís not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. Itís this big heavyweight ball and chain.")

Java desktop apps suck. The sooner they die the better.

(However, server-side Java is a different story. Were you lamenting the lack of SE 6 on Leopard Server you might have a point. But then again, I know of no one who uses server-side Java on Mac. My organisation certainly doesn't: it's all Linux and Solaris.)

rpp3po
Oct 26, 2007, 09:16 AM
Java desktop apps suck. The sooner they die the better.



That's outdated, as many myths about Java. Check http://azureus.sf.net. That's THE bittorrent client. It has got an excellent UI and performance is more than acceptable, even on a 1.33 Ghz G4 and Java 5. Java 6 Swing performance has improved even more. Java 6 Look & Feels are also great.

kainjow
Oct 26, 2007, 09:40 AM
Check http://azureus.sf.net. That's THE bittorrent client. It has got an excellent UI and performance is more than acceptable, even on a 1.33 Ghz G4 and Java 5. Java 6 Swing performance has improved even more. Java 6 Look & Feels are also great.

That UI is 99% custom. It doesn't look like a Mac application at all. Anyone can make a UI like that. It looks just like a web page.

Typical Java apps do suck because almost all cross-platform UI applications use the least common denominator between operating systems. Another reason why REALbasic apps suck :)

AlmostThere
Oct 26, 2007, 12:28 PM
Typical Java apps do suck because almost all cross-platform UI applications use the least common denominator between operating systems. Another reason why REALbasic apps suck :)

Actually suck or just not quite as nice looking as a Cocoa or Windows app?

Eclipse and NetBeans are both desktop Java apps and both are a country mile ahead of anything 'native' for performing the same task; Xcode is very pretty but, frankly, sucks in comparison.

And while I am on the topic, I often hear that a certain app has crashed 'because it's Java and rubbish'. All applications crash at some point, but I don't blame Cocoa or Carbon everytime a native app crashes (and yes, I have Java apps open all day on OS X and Windows and I don't think any of them suck, they are simply the best tools for getting what I need done).

Oh, and yes, no Java 6 - that does suck.

kainjow
Oct 26, 2007, 12:42 PM
Actually suck or just not quite as nice looking as a Cocoa or Windows app?

Well I'm picky. If an app has an ugly UI, in my opinion it sucks. Consistent UI is what sets the Mac apart from any other OS.

Don't make me pull out the car analogy ;)

rpp3po
Oct 26, 2007, 12:55 PM
Well I'm picky. If an app has an ugly UI, in my opinion it sucks. Consistent UI is what sets the Mac apart from any other OS.


Consistent UI across platforms is what sets Java apart.

There are also excellent UI's written in Java, and crap written in Cocoa. What's the point?

kainjow
Oct 26, 2007, 01:09 PM
Consistent UI across platforms is what sets Java apart.

There are also excellent UI's written in Java, and crap written in Cocoa. What's the point?

My point is Java UI apps on the Mac generally break the consistency that Cocoa and Carbon usually retain. Yes you can write ugly apps in Cocoa, but it's harder because Interface Builder gives you guides as to where every control should be placed.

Of course you can make a nice looking Java app for the Mac. But will that app look equally nice on Windows or Linux? Probably not because the standard UI layout is different for each OS.

Anyways, this is way off topic.

At least you guys have a version of Java running on Leopard. It's way better than M$ screwing .NET developers by not including the framework on XP.

AlmostThere
Oct 26, 2007, 03:34 PM
That wasn't really meant to be a dig at all - I know what you mean. I tried with Xcode, I really did, and I wanted Apple to do it well, but at the end of the day, other tools are better. I am a bit defensive over Java, as it is one of the few tools that let me do cross DB work on a Mac. IMHO, some of the software is little short of superb and I also had similar, sceptical preconceptions about Java. I am happy to have been proved wrong.

Staying on topic, if Apple do let Java slip, then .NET tools, especially C#3 which has some very really cool features, especially LINQ and lamba expressions, something I miss, make a very attractive alternative for the future as it covers all the other bases too. I might not be mainstream for Apple's consumer centric focus, but that doesn't mean I am happy to be treated like a second class citizen.

SJ has repeatedly stressed the importance of Java but is failing to deliver (for whatever, no doubt reasonable, cause), this latest example highlighting it. As and when Java 6 comes out, minimum specs become 10.5.1 or higher, not just Leopard, which also adds an unecessary layer of complication.

Blacky
Oct 26, 2007, 03:41 PM
there is a great solution to make the UI look just like any other mac app and that's swt, looks better than swing on any platform and is cross-platform consistent too, can't beat it.

Ontopic now: I'm disgusted about how apple handles developers, my eclipse is crashing on leopard, I don't hava java 6, I don't have any word if there ever will be one, ...

I posted on the thread on apple's own discussion board, the frecking thread got deleted!!!

Not to mention other leopard problems like isight being completely disabled when trying to take pictures for a new user account using the preference screen.

The minimizing being very laggy on the latest mbp with 8600gtm ...

It's sick, did I pay 2500Ä for this?

I'm grabbing a wndows box off the shelve tomorrow to have a non-crashing eclipse box and hope these things get sorted out quickly!

I'm quite frustrated at this stage ... I hope they can do some damage control.

AlmostThere
Oct 26, 2007, 04:10 PM
If you want to use Swing, be sure to check out Quaqua. It makes an impressive stab at getting the UI as right as possible while remaining cross platform. Changing a pluggable laf is a lot less work than rewriting a GUI.

craig1410
Oct 26, 2007, 04:34 PM
Hi guys,
Sorry if this has been covered before but I am pretty new to the Mac although I have been programming Java on Windows and Linux for a number of years.

Am I correct in assuming that Sun themselves don't produce a Java package for the Mac in the same way that they do for Linux and Windows? Are we completely reliant on Apple to produce the goods? If this is true them I am pretty shocked to say the least!

Cheers,
Craig.

whitehexagon
Oct 26, 2007, 04:55 PM
"At a WWDC, Jobs said "We will make the best platform for Java Developers!""

I hope that Apple will soon release both Java 6 and full zfs support.

One of the reasons I bought a MBP recently! I can't stress enough how disappointing this news is, what happened to the beta I read about? so they just dropped Java6 all together?, real shame.

Running 6 in Parallels is not much fun :( Please Apple, don't forget us Java developers! Almost all the Mac owners I know (90% Java developers) are feeling very let down by the news that Java6 is missing in Leopard.

Personally I make the choice then to wait on Leopard for proper Java support. Also looking forward to full ZFS :)) Apple can be applauded for that decision!!

ryan
Oct 26, 2007, 05:08 PM
Hi guys,
Sorry if this has been covered before but I am pretty new to the Mac although I have been programming Java on Windows and Linux for a number of years.

Am I correct in assuming that Sun themselves don't produce a Java package for the Mac in the same way that they do for Linux and Windows? Are we completely reliant on Apple to produce the goods? If this is true them I am pretty shocked to say the least!

Yes, Apple does all their own Java work, by choice. My hope is that if Apple isn't interested in keeping Java up-to-date on OSX that they turn it over to Sun/the OpenJDK people.

ryan
Oct 26, 2007, 05:15 PM
Thousands of Fortune 500 companies?:eek:

Name one that uses Java on the Mac to implement central, mission critical services.

Hell, I'd be surprised if any of them that are committed to using Java have rolled Java 6 into production yet, given SOX.

That's true, most large corporations are still using 1.2, 1.3 and in some cases 1.4 (just look at how Struts 1.x, which is 7 years old still has a 60%-70% market share). However, there a lot of developers such as myself that are involved in small, pet or open source projects (http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/openfire/index.jsp) that require 1.5 and can take advantage of 1.6 when available, or that like to stay up to date on the latest enhancements to the language and want to work with it on our Macs.

Stella
Oct 26, 2007, 08:04 PM
Well I'm picky. If an app has an ugly UI, in my opinion it sucks. Consistent UI is what sets the Mac apart from any other OS.

Don't make me pull out the car analogy ;)

Thats a very shallow view.

There are a lot of excellent Java desktop applications out there.

Apple want OSX to be a great development machine - and it is - but it will suffer without Java.

SJ comments about 'nobody uses Java' was aimed @ the iPhone ( there are plenty of Java apps for cellphones - but I think he was talking about applets ), not for Desktop and server platforms. Java applications on both desktop and, more so, server are plentiful.

whitehexagon
Oct 27, 2007, 01:47 AM
Yes, Apple does all their own Java work, by choice. My hope is that if Apple isn't interested in keeping Java up-to-date on OSX that they turn it over to Sun/the OpenJDK people.

Well that would be the perfect solution. We might even get the Java 7 beta in a reasonable amount of time that way :) But from my understanding Sun did offer to do the OSX port, but Apple wanted to do it themselves to better integrate it into their look and feel.

In fact I see that problem already with my project. Swing looks the same on on Linux, Solaris and Windows, but on Mac my buttons get replaced with Mac buttons. That might be fine for business users who prefer a standard interface, but I'm trying to write a game and the Mac look and feel just doesn't work for it.

Come on guys, write once run anywhere!

mrfrosty
Oct 27, 2007, 02:35 AM
Erm dont get me wrong here.....but....doesn't Java suck big time ?

therevolution
Oct 27, 2007, 02:56 AM
In fact I see that problem already with my project. Swing looks the same on on Linux, Solaris and Windows, but on Mac my buttons get replaced with Mac buttons. That might be fine for business users who prefer a standard interface, but I'm trying to write a game and the Mac look and feel just doesn't work for it.

The Mac look and feel might be the default, but that doesn't mean you're stuck with it. Read up on Java look and feels, and how to change them.

therevolution
Oct 27, 2007, 03:02 AM
Erm dont get me wrong here.....but....doesn't Java suck big time ?

Oh crap. Really? Man, I'm always the last to find out about these things.

Thanks for the heads up!

janey
Oct 27, 2007, 03:14 AM
Erm dont get me wrong here.....but....doesn't Java suck big time ?
If you have nothing of importance to contribute, please feel free to screw off. Whether or not Java "sucks" is irrelevant. It's that apple loves to go on about how much they're committed to helping java devs but they're not following through. Java has its uses, and well, if you feel it "sucks" for unknown and probably preposterous reasons, don't use it.

...Java 6 Swing performance has improved even more. Java 6 Look & Feels are also great.
Apple included some swing improvements in java 5. Makes it look "more" native-ish.

Typical Java apps do suck because almost all cross-platform UI applications use the least common denominator between operating systems. Another reason why REALbasic apps suck :)
At least Azureus can do things native clients for OS X suck at. You know. Well, let's see...transmission, bitrocket, xtorrent, bitsonwheels (which also looks HIDEOUS)...

CapitanAmerica
Oct 27, 2007, 10:38 PM
That UI is 99% custom. It doesn't look like a Mac application at all. Anyone can make a UI like that. It looks just like a web page.

Typical Java apps do suck because almost all cross-platform UI applications use the least common denominator between operating systems. Another reason why REALbasic apps suck :)

You have choices. You can make your app look like a native app with the Swing look and feels or SWT, or you can go for a custom look and feel all the way, which is what many apps are doing anyways today.

The whole look and feel thing is funny because there is not consistency out there, and I love it when Mac people bring it up. Mac apps on Windows almost never respect the conventions in that platform, just look at iTunes and the often horrible interface provided by QuickTime (you know, the video player that won't let you go full screen unless you pay for it?)

stupidregister
Oct 27, 2007, 10:54 PM
That UI is 99% custom. It doesn't look like a Mac application at all. Anyone can make a UI like that. It looks just like a web page.

Typical Java apps do suck because almost all cross-platform UI applications use the least common denominator between operating systems. Another reason why REALbasic apps suck :)

Have you even used Azureus before or are you just making stuff up? Here (http://stormwolf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fings/proxyjail/azureus1.png) is a screenshot I found online. It doesn't look exactly native and this specific screenshot seems to show a glitch, but it definitely doesn't look like a web page. That is unless you think Cocoa applications look like a web pages too.

iancapable
Oct 28, 2007, 01:37 AM
My point is Java UI apps on the Mac generally break the consistency that Cocoa and Carbon usually retain. Yes you can write ugly apps in Cocoa, but it's harder because Interface Builder gives you guides as to where every control should be placed.

Of course you can make a nice looking Java app for the Mac. But will that app look equally nice on Windows or Linux? Probably not because the standard UI layout is different for each OS.

Anyways, this is way off topic.

At least you guys have a version of Java running on Leopard. It's way better than M$ screwing .NET developers by not including the framework on XP.

It depends on the developer... I've made swing apps that are consistent with the look and feel of cocoa.

Java came from Objective-C in a lot of ways and I think it's heart breaking that it's not important to Apple, especially since there is so much momentum behind java, probably as much as apple...

People aren't going to to rush to cocoa, people want cross platform, especially if the Mac continues to grow like it has.

Apple need a good kick in the backside to see this.

whitehexagon
Oct 28, 2007, 06:44 AM
The Mac look and feel might be the default, but that doesn't mean you're stuck with it. Read up on Java look and feels, and how to change them.

Thanks for the tip. I thought the cross platform LAF was the standard default on all VM's. Now I know better :)

iJed
Oct 28, 2007, 06:53 AM
Thousands of Fortune 500 companies?:eek:

Name one that uses Java on the Mac to implement central, mission critical services.

Hell, I'd be surprised if any of them that are committed to using Java have rolled Java 6 into production yet, given SOX.

How about Apple. The iTunes Store backend is written in Java with WebObjects. As is the Apple Online Store.


Based on the new Ruby/Python/Scripting bridge support, I think Apple is smartly focusing on where the action is *now*, not on a third-party app framework that is so clunky and has massive overhead.

Even Adobe made its Aperture competitor using a scripting language for the UI (Lua or whatever it was called).

The Adobe Flex Builder development environment is written in Java on top of the excellent Eclipse framework.

The Eclipse framework is also used by Azureus. This is how it gets its semi-native look and feel. The Eclipse UI library (called SWT) wraps the native toolkit of the platform (unlike Swing.) In the case of the Mac version this is Carbon.


What I'd like to see support for on the Mac is Cocoa bindings for .NET languages and C# support in XCode. C# is by far the nicest programming language that I've ever used. C# is vastly superior to Java and is probably the single best thing ever to come out of Microsoft.

iancapable
Oct 28, 2007, 07:48 AM
How about Apple. The iTunes Store backend is written in Java with WebObjects. As is the Apple Online Store.



The Adobe Flex Builder development environment is written in Java on top of the excellent Eclipse framework.

The Eclipse framework is also used by Azureus. This is how it gets its semi-native look and feel. The Eclipse UI library (called SWT) wraps the native toolkit of the platform (unlike Swing.) In the case of the Mac version this is Carbon.


What I'd like to see support for on the Mac is Cocoa bindings for .NET languages and C# support in XCode. C# is by far the nicest programming language that I've ever used. C# is vastly superior to Java and is probably the single best thing ever to come out of Microsoft.

Having done both C#*and Java, I'll happily stick to java thanks... C# has some nice features, but at the end of day it's personal taste. However I do like the Properties feature in C#, but I prefer the fact that Java methods have the throws keyword, if used right, you would not believe how much easier things are...

If you're interested in .net on OSX then look at mono, it's not complete, I don't support it either, but it gives the ability to run .net stuff on any platform.

Persifleur
Oct 28, 2007, 07:56 AM
At least Azureus can do things native clients for OS X suck at. You know. Well, let's see...transmission, bitrocket, xtorrent, bitsonwheels (which also looks HIDEOUS)...
Let us separate the functionality of an application from its language. There is no doubt that Azureus is a capable application. But I hate using it. If tomorrow there existed a native application with the same functionality as Azureus, I'd switch. No doubt in my mind. The problem is that there are no viable alternatives, which is entirely separate from Azureus being nice to use.

It depends on the developer... I've made swing apps that are consistent with the look and feel of cocoa.
This is precisely the problem. Writing a good Swing app is hard and many people just don't know how. Couple that with the fact most programmers are terrible at UI design and you get a lot of badly performing cruft.

While I'm not saying this phenomenon is unique to Java apps (i.e. you can get native cruft as well - just look at Rational Rose), I've yet to use a Java desktop app that I actually liked. And that includes Eclipse. But again I'm forced to use Eclipse because there isn't anything better. (All other IDEs are also written in Java, which makes sense.)

People aren't going to to rush to cocoa, people want cross platform, especially if the Mac continues to grow like it has.
People want cross-platform native apps. I've been programming in Java for little over 10 years, and every time I've inherited a project which involves a Swing front-end, they've all had one thing in common: hostile users. A Java-based front end will just not get wide-spread acceptance in the presence of a viable native competitor.

What I'd like to see support for on the Mac is Cocoa bindings for .NET languages and C# support in XCode. C# is by far the nicest programming language that I've ever used. C# is vastly superior to Java and is probably the single best thing ever to come out of Microsoft.
Yes, I completely agree. C# is the nicest language I've ever used. This is pretty much what I do nowadays: C# desktop application communicating with a Java server-side application.

zwida
Oct 28, 2007, 01:18 PM
Thousands of Fortune 500 companies?:eek:

Nice. That may be the funniest thing. EVER.

iSee
Oct 28, 2007, 02:14 PM
Nice. That may be the funniest thing. EVER.

It's not that funny, since the poster was referring to thousands of services, not companies.
It was a bit ambiguous, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.

iJed
Oct 28, 2007, 07:32 PM
Having done both C#*and Java, I'll happily stick to java thanks... C# has some nice features, but at the end of day it's personal taste. However I do like the Properties feature in C#, but I prefer the fact that Java methods have the throws keyword, if used right, you would not believe how much easier things are...

If you're interested in .net on OSX then look at mono, it's not complete, I don't support it either, but it gives the ability to run .net stuff on any platform.

I used to think this way too. That was until I spent a few weeks writing C# 2.0 non-stop at work. I agree with you on the checked exceptions though... However I think they are far outweighed by allowing unsafe code/pointer manipulation, delegates and events, operator overloading, generic methods, multiple classes in the same file (not inner classes), a single class over multiple files, the pre-processor, unsigned types, the ability to declare nullable value types, etc. Some of the stuff - LINQ, setting properties on construction, automatic properties and extension methods - coming in C# 3.0 are also really interesting.

I've used mono a bit actually. It seems to work fairly well and has support for C# 2.0. What I'd like to see is Apple adding support for C#, through mono or otherwise.


People want cross-platform native apps. I've been programming in Java for little over 10 years, and every time I've inherited a project which involves a Swing front-end, they've all had one thing in common: hostile users. A Java-based front end will just not get wide-spread acceptance in the presence of a viable native competitor.

Yep, IMO Swing is the reason Java on the desktop has failed so miserably. The fact that Sun is still pushing this pile of crap --Swing, not Java-- I just cannot understand. Maybe it is just impossible to produce a toolkit for multi-platform UIs? Current evidence with things like Swing, SWT and GTK suggest this may be the case.

Great Dave
Oct 29, 2007, 12:08 AM
Speaking of no Java 6, I just ran into this error message ...

"The UML plugin currently does not support Macintosh(tm) platforms due to known issues related with the delay in the Apple(tm) JDK development."

iancapable
Oct 29, 2007, 12:56 AM
Let us separate the functionality of an application from its language. There is no doubt that Azureus is a capable application. But I hate using it. If tomorrow there existed a native application with the same functionality as Azureus, I'd switch. No doubt in my mind. The problem is that there are no viable alternatives, which is entirely separate from Azureus being nice to use.


This is precisely the problem. Writing a good Swing app is hard and many people just don't know how. Couple that with the fact most programmers are terrible at UI design and you get a lot of badly performing cruft.

While I'm not saying this phenomenon is unique to Java apps (i.e. you can get native cruft as well - just look at Rational Rose), I've yet to use a Java desktop app that I actually liked. And that includes Eclipse. But again I'm forced to use Eclipse because there isn't anything better. (All other IDEs are also written in Java, which makes sense.)


People want cross-platform native apps. I've been programming in Java for little over 10 years, and every time I've inherited a project which involves a Swing front-end, they've all had one thing in common: hostile users. A Java-based front end will just not get wide-spread acceptance in the presence of a viable native competitor.


Yes, I completely agree. C# is the nicest language I've ever used. This is pretty much what I do nowadays: C# desktop application communicating with a Java server-side application.

Time for a bit of eclipse/netbeans flaming... Have you tried netbeans? The GUI editor is fantastic! I've been using the NB6 beta and I have to say it gets better and better.

Eclipse is good to a point, it's good if you like to fiddle, but netbeans works properly out the box. A bit more sluggish though (well with 1.5)...

There is a lot of momentum behind java at the moment and swing! We at work were going to do exactly what you do, have a java backend talking to a nice clean .net app on the front... This idea has pretty much been dropped after I did a demo of what swing can do.

http:///www.swinglabs.org

iancapable
Oct 29, 2007, 12:58 AM
Nice. That may be the funniest thing. EVER.

I don't think the OP of that comment actually knew what a fortune 500 company is, I'll enlighten him:

An annual list of the 500 largest US companies, published in Fortune magazine.

iancapable
Oct 29, 2007, 01:02 AM
I used to think this way too. That was until I spent a few weeks writing C# 2.0 non-stop at work. I agree with you on the checked exceptions though... However I think they are far outweighed by allowing unsafe code/pointer manipulation, delegates and events, operator overloading, generic methods, multiple classes in the same file (not inner classes), a single class over multiple files, the pre-processor, unsigned types, the ability to declare nullable value types, etc. Some of the stuff - LINQ, setting properties on construction, automatic properties and extension methods - coming in C# 3.0 are also really interesting.

I've used mono a bit actually. It seems to work fairly well and has support for C# 2.0. What I'd like to see is Apple adding support for C#, through mono or otherwise.



Yep, IMO Swing is the reason Java on the desktop has failed so miserably. The fact that Sun is still pushing this pile of crap --Swing, not Java-- I just cannot understand. Maybe it is just impossible to produce a toolkit for multi-platform UIs? Current evidence with things like Swing, SWT and GTK suggest this may be the case.

I've not used a lot of c#*2.0, I'm not very interested in microsoft or the microsoft way of doing things and have shunned the OS for years except where I happened to find work as a .net dev (a few years of that)... But I generally avoid the OS if possible.

I do like visual studio though... A LOT...

At the end of the day there are a lot of problems still being faced in .net, one if you compile a service on a 32bit machine, it won't work on a 64 bit machine... Another major point: It's Microsoft, it runs on windows and will only ever run on windows. Mono is a toy, and just like classpath it will not be completed! If it is no matter how much MS say they won't sue the hell out of everyone, they will.

Persifleur
Oct 29, 2007, 05:30 AM
Time for a bit of eclipse/netbeans flaming... Have you tried netbeans? The GUI editor is fantastic! I've been using the NB6 beta and I have to say it gets better and better.

Eclipse is good to a point, it's good if you like to fiddle, but netbeans works properly out the box. A bit more sluggish though (well with 1.5)...

There is a lot of momentum behind java at the moment and swing! We at work were going to do exactly what you do, have a java backend talking to a nice clean .net app on the front... This idea has pretty much been dropped after I did a demo of what swing can do.

http:///www.swinglabs.org

No I haven't used NetBeans for some time. I looked at NetBeans when they were making the transition from 3.5 to 4.0, but I was using JBuilder at the time and NetBeans just wasn't nearly as good. I switched to Eclipse when they released version 3 as JBuilder was becoming increasingly bloated (ironically they use the Eclipse Framework now). I have heard that the new Swing editor in NetBeans is supposed to be much better, but I haven't had a chance to look at it. But given that Swing was released in 1998, it does make you wonder why it took so long for a decent editor to come out.

iancapable
Oct 29, 2007, 06:19 AM
No I haven't used NetBeans for some time. I looked at NetBeans when they were making the transition from 3.5 to 4.0, but I was using JBuilder at the time and NetBeans just wasn't nearly as good. I switched to Eclipse when they released version 3 as JBuilder was becoming increasingly bloated (ironically they use the Eclipse Framework now). I have heard that the new Swing editor in NetBeans is supposed to be much better, but I haven't had a chance to look at it. But given that Swing was released in 1998, it does make you wonder why it took so long for a decent editor to come out.

Maybe due to the fact that everyone went web mad a while ago... The new thing seems to be rich clients that connect to server based stuff.

The new swing stuff in 1.5 and 1.6 is very promising.

CapitanAmerica
Oct 29, 2007, 08:17 AM
This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. What was surprising to me was the number of Java developers buying Macs for the express purpose of doing Java development.

http://sellmic.com/blog/2007/10/28/beware-of-rotten-apples/

NEiMac
Oct 29, 2007, 06:19 PM
I don't know much of anything about Java, not sure I care if I do, but I would love to see them keep it up to date. Nothing else its one less thing for the windows fans to latch onto in the forums. :D

seanneko
Oct 29, 2007, 07:53 PM
If this means that OS X will not have Java 6 until the next major release, then Apple have really shot themselves in the foot.

As much as some people here want to kid themselves, Java is not some rubbish language that's about to die. The vast majority of software development is done using Java, such as at my work (research organisation employing a few thousand people). There's a bit of C++ and an even smaller amount of .NET, and absolutely NO Objective-C. Incidentally, all of our Macs run Windows XP. Take a look at a list of programming jobs in the newspaper - how many are related to Java, and how many Objective-C?

I don't know or really care about Fortune 500 since I'm not American, but I'm sure that they don't run native Mac apps for their backend systems. How can an app written in Objective-C compare to an enterprise system with integrated distributed fault tolerance developed in Java EE?

Java has a bad reputation for two reasons. Firstly, the early versions WERE slow, but this has long been fixed since (Java often outperforms C++ under Windows - don't know about OS X performance). Secondly, it's the first language that lots of people learn, which means that there's a lot of Java hacks out there who have no idea what they're doing. They develop crappy single-threaded applications which people use and then base their opinion of the entire programming language on that one application.

There is no reason why you can't develop high quality, high performance, reliable, mission critical applications under Java. It's happening right now all over the world.

hsvmoon
Oct 29, 2007, 08:21 PM
Apple did not ship 1.5 until after the release of Tiger. I think 1.6 is going to be the same. I think the inclusion of 64-bit java on 64-bit machines under Leopard is good evidence that Apple still cares about JAVA and will support 1.6. It seems to me that 64-bit implementations are just as much work as implementing 1.6 upgrades. I am still hopeful that it will be out before the end of the year.

Persifleur
Oct 30, 2007, 04:08 AM
IBM hasn't released their Java 6 implementation either (it's still only "early release" i.e. not production-ready). Given that they've been pretty public supporters of Java, shall we complain about them, too?

There is still a complete and functional 1.5 JDK included with Leopard. Unless you use 1.6-specific features, applications you compile with a 1.6 JDK can still run on a 1.5 JRE.

jeremy.king
Oct 30, 2007, 10:25 AM
Being that Java has been officially open sourced, does anyone else other than me think that Apple is just leaving it to the community to make a 1.6 JDK/JRE?

Compile 'em all
Oct 30, 2007, 10:35 AM
Java 6 Swing performance has improved even more.

Azureus GUI is using SWT not Swing.

Keiichi
Oct 30, 2007, 10:38 AM
Being that Java has been officially open sourced, does anyone else other than me think that Apple is just leaving it to the community to make a 1.6 JDK/JRE?

as far as i know this is not the case and imo it's apple's job to implement java 1.6 in their os rather than leaving this to the community. i don't want the people that use my software to install jre 1.6 before using my app. i'm a cs student and the chair i'm also working for will switch away from osx if there won't be 1.6 in near future.

jeremy.king
Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 AM
i don't want the people that use my software to install jre 1.6 before using my app.

What do you think Windows users have to do?

Edot
Oct 30, 2007, 02:18 PM
I wonder if the delay is related to CoreUI. I mean this new way that Leopard handles UI elements is dramatically different than the way Tiger handles UI elements. I would think these changes significantly effect the way Java UI elements are rendered in Leopard. I'm sure they are working on releasing it.

AlmostThere
Oct 30, 2007, 03:21 PM
IBM hasn't released their Java 6 implementation either (it's still only "early release" i.e. not production-ready). Given that they've been pretty public supporters of Java, shall we complain about them, too?


Not really because of the different ways that the companies use Java. IBM use Java as an anchor for their own IBM development platform, consisting of application servers, databases and data management tools and loads more. By contrast, Apple are trying to offer that anchor by selling a Java platform.

Being that Java has been officially open sourced, does anyone else other than me think that Apple is just leaving it to the community to make a 1.6 JDK/JRE?
I think that is very unlikely for something the size and complexity of Java - it really needs corporate backing for a development of this size, and the only genuinely interested party is going to be Apple. I don't know off hand of comparable projects that don't have a major corporate sponsor or three.

What do you think Windows users have to do?

Probably use the runtime that you bundle with your application.

mbabauer
Apr 15, 2008, 08:24 AM
Not really because of the different ways that the companies use Java. IBM use Java as an anchor for their own IBM development platform, consisting of application servers, databases and data management tools and loads more. By contrast, Apple are trying to offer that anchor by selling a Java platform.

Agreed. IBM is notorious for being late on their JDK releases, at least in the AIX world. This is why my team at work switched from AIX to Linux x86_64. This way we can use Sun's JVM and forgo the waiting.


I think that is very unlikely for something the size and complexity of Java - it really needs corporate backing for a development of this size, and the only genuinely interested party is going to be Apple. I don't know off hand of comparable projects that don't have a major corporate sponsor or three.

I agree. Something this size takes a team of developers, and without funding, you can't pay for them. It would be awesome to see Apple back something like this, though.



Probably use the runtime that you bundle with your application.

Errrr! Wrong! I rarely see a Java application bundled with a JVM. Some installers will install a JVM, if one doesn't exist, but it's no different than what M$ does with DirectX and video games. IBM does this practice on their big Java-based applications like WebSphere and TADDM, laying down their own IBM JVM durring installs regardless if you want them or not, but I would say this is more of an exception than a rule.