Apple Adds Java SE 6 to Leopard

[wrldwzrd89]

As a Java developer, I am highly disappointed. Shame on you, Apple.

*sigh* I guess there's no better time than now to bite the bullet and learn Objective-C.

 

[ryan.axiom]

So if Java 6 is 64-bit, is the Safari browser compiled as 64-bit now too? Otherwise would a 64-bit plug-in work in a 32-bit Safari? And if you are running a 64-bit Safari, have other plug-ins been compiled as 64-bit yet?

Safari is still 32 bit. If you run Activity Monitor the type of process will be displayed under the kind column. If it's 32 bit Intel it will say just Intel, 64 bit intel will say Intel(64-bit) or something like that...I haven't run Mathematica 6 (64-bit) in a while, so I can't remember exactly. Also PPC shows up as well.

Perhaps this is to prepare for a 64-bit Safari option?

 

[macsmurf]

As a consumer level user I can't think of a single site that uses Java that I visit on a regular basis. Not my banking site, not my credit cards sites, no forums, not any of the social networking sites. The only site I get the Java coffee cup loading indication is on one old speed test site. And I sure as h*ll don't know of any that use Java 6.0. This sounds to me like another one of those Geek Squad things that only a few weirdos need for online games and such. Again, as a consumer level, home user I just don't see the need for Java on the OS X platform.

Java is primarily used on the server side, so you might be using a site that uses java without you knowing about it (such as ebay).

 

[compuguy1088]

This seems quite a shoddy update for “the best Java delivery platform on the planet” (the words of Steve Jobs, not me).

Have I surmised the situation correctly:
[1] Intel only
[2] 64bit only
[3] Still need Java 5 to run all of your current Java applications.

It seems to me Apple gave up on Java a while ago and it will die a slow death on the platform for as long as they have control of the JVM.

Taking away any pro or anti Java arguments, it is still a mistake, here's why:
[1] Apple sells to education, many computer science courses teach Java.
[2] Apple sells to developers, many developers write Java.

I believe Apple will loose at least some hardware sales as a result of this. How much of an impact it will make is debatable. No doubt they will have already done the maths.

Apple's thought of the day appears to be wake up and smell the Cocoa.

It is not most.....it is all (at least in the United States) if they are AP. College courses are also focused on Java (to an extent).

As a Java developer, I am highly disappointed. Shame on you, Apple.

*sigh* I guess there's no better time than now to bite the bullet and learn Objective-C.

*Quotes previous post*

Though there are unoffical builds of Java 6 that work with 32-bit only macs...SoyLatte for instance...
http://landonf.bikemonkey.org/static/soylatte/

 

[therevolution]

That makes absolutely NO SENSE! Java is platform independent the last time I checked. Something that is compiled on Windows for java 6 should work on a mac with the 64 bit build. The only limitation with using 64-bit java is that it will not work on a 32 bit browser (the same thing with 64-bit version on windows). What I do not get is that there is no real advantage of having java compiled for 64 bit. It would make more sense to of made it for 32 bit to allow all intel macs to take advantage of Java 6....

It has nothing to do with how many "bits" your browser is. It has to do with the fact that while Java *applications* are platform independent, the JVM on each platform is not.

If you want to run Java on a 64-bit platform, then you need a JVM compiled for that architecture. As far as I know, Intel 64-bit isn't the same as Intel 32-bit, both of which of course do not work with PPC (of any bits). It looks like in order to simplify their own development process, Apple chose to just support the latest architecture and forget the others. Which is a serious bummer.

 

[elppa]

It is not most.....it is all (at least in the United States) if they are AP. College courses are also focused on Java (to an extent).

I said many and I wouldn't assume I was talking about the US only, because I wasn't.

Java is primarily used on the server side, so you might be using a site that uses java without you knowing about it (such as ebay).

In which case it is running on their servers on not your computer, so the original poster's argument would still stand.

Edit: I'd be annoyed if I brought a 64bit PowerMac G5. Those are such capable machines, yet seem to get treated as an after thought by Apple.

 

[compuguy1088]

It has nothing to do with how many "bits" your browser is. It has to do with the fact that while Java *applications* are platform independent, the JVM on each platform is not.

If you want to run Java on a 64-bit platform, then you need a JVM compiled for that architecture. As far as I know, Intel 64-bit isn't the same as Intel 32-bit, both of which of course do not work with PPC (of any bits). It looks like in order to simplify their own development process, Apple chose to just support the latest architecture and forget the others. Which is a serious bummer.

So the JVM is different. That should not prevent compiled code for Java 6 to run. This does prevent developers with 32-bit or PPC processors from using Java 6.

 

[Cromulent]

That makes absolutely NO SENSE! Java is platform independent the last time I checked. Something that is compiled on Windows for java 6 should work on a mac with the 64 bit build. The only limitation with using 64-bit java is that it will not work on a 32 bit browser (the same thing with 64-bit version on windows). What I do not get is that there is no real advantage of having java compiled for 64 bit. It would make more sense to of made it for 32 bit to allow all intel macs to take advantage of Java 6....

Was this aimed at me?

Do you understand the difference between a virtual machine and the real hardware that you are using? A virtual machine does not magically change the way software works at a fundamental level it mearly adds another layer that the software runs off. Thus bad design choices made when writing the application that would affect a 32 bit to 64 bit transition will still have a negative effect.

All a virtual machine is is another set of instructions that software uses which are then converted into native instructions for the real hardware. You could invent a whole new CPU architecture yourself if you wanted using virtual machines, in fact that is what one of the most famous computer science books does as a theoretical basis.

And just because Java source code is platform independent does not mean the Java implementation is platform independent.

 

[compuguy1088]

Was this aimed at me?

Do you understand the difference between a virtual machine and the real hardware that you are using? A virtual machine does not magically change the way software works at a fundamental level it mearly adds another layer that the software runs off. Thus bad design choices made when writing the application that would affect a 32 bit to 64 bit transition will still have a negative effect.

All a virtual machine is is another set of instructions that software uses which are then converted into native instructions for the real hardware. You could invent a whole new CPU architecture yourself if you wanted using virtual machines, in fact that is what one of the most famous computer science books does as a theoretical basis.

And just because Java source code is platform independent does not mean the Java implementation is platform independent.

Yes I understand, but if the VM is written to follow the standards of Java 6, then a simple java app (say some bouncing squares) should run in both Windows (32-bit VM) and in OSX (64-bit VM).

 

[therevolution]

So the JVM is different. That should not prevent compiled code for Java 6 to run. This does prevent developers with 32-bit or PPC processors from using Java 6.

Code compiled for Java 6 will not run on previous versions of Java. Beyond that, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. I don't think you understand the difference between Java applications and the Java virtual machine (JVM).

 

[feri]

Hotmail finally on Safari!

For the first time I can browse hotmail on safari. Is this related to the Java update? or .... what?

 

[macsmurf]

In which case it is running on their servers on not your computer, so the original poster's argument would still stand.

Yeah, but someone has to make those server-side applications. Personally, I would prefer to do it on a mac, but Apple haven't exactly been forthcoming on their future plans for Java.

 

[danielwsmithee]

I've just installed this on my MacBook. So it doesn't need a 64-bit Intel-based Mac. Just an Intel-based Mac.

Most MacBooks are 64-bit. Only the original Core Duo Mac Books were not. All of the Core 2 Duos are.

 

[RaceTripper]

Yeah, but someone has to make those server-side applications. Personally, I would prefer to do it on a mac, but Apple haven't exactly been forthcoming on their future plans for Java.

And not all apps are server side. I work on thick (Swing) clients that run on Windows and AIX, but I prefer to work on my Mac.

 

[elppa]

For the first time I can browse hotmail on safari. Is this related to the Java update? or .... what?

No.

Yeah, but someone has to make those server-side applications. Personally, I would prefer to do it on a mac, but Apple haven't exactly been forthcoming on their future plans for Java.

Fair enough, I can see your predicament.

IKrupps original point was:

At a consumer level

So I guess it comes down to the fact that not all consumers are developers, although obviously all developers are consumers.

 

[dogbait]

I like most Java devs can only say YYEEEEEEEESSSSS!

But seriously, Leopard only? That means our apps when compiled for Java 6 will be Leopard only?

BOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[leRiCl]

Most MacBooks are 64-bit. Only the original Core Duo Mac Books were not. All of the Core 2 Duos are.

Far out.... My core duo macbook is only a year and a bit old.... and already starting to miss hardware requirements.... No, I don't have enough cash to buy a new one until next year, at least.

Then again Java 5 is enough... Hell, Java 4 is enough.

 

[e7e]

sorry for this stupid question, but how can i add this to eclipse?

 

[russellelly]

Please Apple, just let Sun do the JVM. This is a farce, and it's over a year late. And it does, directly, affect me as a Java Developer. Write Once Run Anywhere except on a PPC Mac

 

[milo]

This seems quite a shoddy update for “the best Java delivery platform on the planet” (the words of Steve Jobs, not me).

Have I surmised the situation correctly:
[1] Intel only
[2] 64bit only
[3] Still need Java 5 to run all of your current Java applications.

It seems to me Apple gave up on Java a while ago and it will die a slow death on the platform for as long as they have control of the JVM.

Taking away any pro or anti Java arguments, it is still a mistake, here's why:
[1] Apple sells to education, many computer science courses teach Java.
[2] Apple sells to developers, many developers write Java.

I believe Apple will loose at least some hardware sales as a result of this. How much of an impact it will make is debatable. No doubt they will have already done the maths.

Apple's thought of the day appears to be wake up and smell the Cocoa.

And you didn't even mention that this new Java build doesn't run on 10.4.x.

Wow, what a debacle.

It looks like apple either hates Java and is practically trying to sabotage its use on Mac, or they're completely incompetent with it. Both possibilities are pretty ugly.

 

[thefunkymunky]

Why no 32-bit version?

 

[macsmurf]

It looks like apple either hates Java and is practically trying to sabotage its use on Mac, or they're completely incompetent with it. Both possibilities are pretty ugly.

Maybe Apple just love Linux and want to persuade as many Java developers to switch to that platform as humanely possibly. Giving back to the open-source community and all that

 

[Iroganai]

I think

i) Apple just hates Java,

ii) Apple thinks their target demographic doesn't use Java apps,

iii) Apple thinks College students who need to do Java don't need Java 6

iv) Apple thinks most Java developers who use Macs have 64-bit intel Macs.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

To All the Morons who told this Engineer to stick it about Java 6 on Tiger

You just got a dose of reality.

I told you it was dropped and you didn't listen to a damn thing.

Sit and spin on that one.

Apple is targeting 64 bit clean systems.

 

[Montserrat]

Needs 64 bit browser (Safari is 32 bit), so not sure when one would use this yet anyway, so don't worry, all those people with older macs, I'm sure it'll be available by the time Safari goes 64 bit