Talk:Java (software platform)

JRE 6.0 update 3

I updated the latest release in the box. I'm using the last modified date of the release notes page, because I can't find a more accurate release date. If anyone knows, or knows how to find out. Please change it, and if they wouldn't mind posting here, so I can see how to figure it out as I don't doubt that I probably just missed something obvious. Thanks. AnarchyElmo 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality is appalling

The article's quality is appalling! sentences and language use are pretty bad. This will need some work! Npovmachine 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Programming language

I felt it necessary to significantly modify the Language section of this page to address perceived bias and better reflect the more thorough Java programming language article. In addition, I may have inadvertantly inserted my own bias by promulgating the "less-pure" meme. Please feel free to do what you will. --gortsack 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You edits were on target, you just didn't go far enough.  :-) I worked on it some more, but it was pretty poorly worded compared to the Java programming language article that most of this content was taken from. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

problems!

I disagree very strongly with the following statement made in the article:

Standalone applications have fallen out of favor as computing has switched to a Web-based model. New programming techniques have produced powerful Web applications....

The advent of portable drives, knoppix, etc. contradicts the preceding statement. The demand for small, self-contained, and portable binaries is higher than ever. Take for example, utorrent.

(The following paragraph contradicts itself, and my own personal experience is that 1.5 and 5.0 apps don't get along with just one JRE, so I purposefully avoid all Java to preclude 500Mb of JRE ;) )

...Because of incompatibilities between different versions of the JRE, rather than rely on pre-installed JREs, many applications install their own JREs in order to function predictably. Java applets can detect which version of Java they are running on and the high level of compatibility between different versions of Java ensures it is a simple matter to support older versions of Java whilst making use of the additional features of later versions.

I've found a high level of compatibility between Java versions, to the extent that the same byte code runs on all versions. See Clesh for one example (needs broadband). Also, services like Google mail and in fact Google itself have become more popular and these are web based applications. Stephen B Streater 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

why isnt OOo being mentioned as a good example for a nice java-desktop app?

because it isn't one, its a C++ app that happens to use a tiny bit of java for its scripting functionaility. Plugwash 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have suffered from the JRE incompatibility problems referred to above, but not being an expert in Java, I've added cleanup tags to two sections, and added fact tags to some statements. In fact some compatibilty claims in the article are directly counter to my experiences but I guess that would be OR. -Wikianon 11:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what is meant by the Criticism section when it states that Java necessarily uses "a user's IP address to allow Java to function." I've used Java for years, and don't know what this means. There is a bug opened on Java 1.5.0 through 1.5.9 (I believe) where calling some network functions tried doing a reverse DNS lookup on the remote IP address, but this was a bug that has been since fixed, not a feature of the langauage. There are plenty of valid critiques of Java, I just don't think this is one of them (factually). If not clarified, this section should be removed. Dov Wasserman 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a after the sentence, and I agree that it seems to be original research (and maybe false). I propose to delete the entire Criticism section (it contains only this sentence) if nobody is able to cite sources in a few days. Plus, even if there are sources, I think the sentence should be : clarified + put in the general Criticism of Java article. The sentence says exactly the contrary as a LOT of sources always say : Java is generally a secure language. Hervegirod 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

don't merge

we tried having the top level java article and the programming language as one article and it was frankly a mess with the "java as a whole" people constantly fighting over what the article should contain with the "java programming language" people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

I agree, so I'm removing the merge tags. Someone can always readd the merge and include reasons that might gain consensus in the two Talk pages. -Wikianon 11:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Version history

I think that this article is too long. Why not split the "Version History" part in another article, to link with this one, or at least keep only the beginning of the chapter in this article, and put the detailed J2SE 1.0 to 7.0 to the new article ? Hervegirod 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No answer, I took it as a yes Hervegirod 11:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GPL

is there actually any official sun download marked up as GPL yet, if not then imo we are jumping the gun saying that java has been made GPL. Plugwash 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ok i just took a look at https://openjdk.dev.java.net/ and it seems that the vm and the compiler are already gpl but the class libraries (which are arguablly the most valuable part of java to have under a free software license) are not going to be until early 2007. Plugwash 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

javac and hotspot are GPL now, and they really are valuable pieces of software (think of the speed of Sun's vm compared to other free vms, for example). Hervegirod 12:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

javac is very low value. The java language to java bytecode conversion isn't that complex and there are perfectly acceptable free compilers out there. Hotspot is more valuable but i'd imagine it has a fairly strong dependency on suns class libraries which are still non-free. If and when we see a buildable JRE made up of opensource software then that WILL be a very significant moment but what we have been given so far is practically worthless on its own. Plugwash 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Licensing

There really shouldn't be a "past and present" division about free software licensing of Sun's JRE or class library because it still isn't free, and according to Sun it won't be free until at least March. Even if/when Sun Java becomes free, the before and after sections would probably not be useful for such a small set of information. Also, in the english language, saying "Java wasn't free software" (past tense) can imply that it has changed from non-free to free, which wouldn't be accurate. If it wasn't free software, and it still isn't, then you would use a current tense, or if you must refer to the past, "has never been" would be clear.

The Licensing section also needed some major cleanups in a variety of ways. I've tried to make the section more concise and clear without removing anything important, but if I did remove something important, please re-add it, rather than reverting the entire edit. 64.59.144.21 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Desktop Use

Two of the claims are not fact-based and maybe not relevant:

• Tools used to develop graphical Java applications are fragmented and none is as popular as Microsoft's Visual Studio suite for developing Windows applications: I never seen any comment about this on the web, especially to explain why Java is not widely used on the desktop.

This also appears to be a very strange claim that Microsoft's Visual Studio suite is more widely used for developing Graphical Java applications than eclipse. I suspect 5 years ago this may have been close to the truth, but I would be amazed if it is true now.

Netbeans for teh win! In all seriousness though, there are plenty of excellent free solutions out there, such as Netbeans and Eclipse. Without fighting over which of the free solutions is better (Netbeans would win that hands down anyway), it is redicilous to assume that (esp. without statistical evidence) a solution that costs tons of money, and is primarily meant for .NET/C++ would be the ideal of preferred development means for Java. My apologies for being anonymous btw :P

• There are multiple versions of the JRE, which can introduce compatibility issues for Java applications installed on a system: this is the same with ANY other language / platform, as C#, Python, Perl, even Flash, and as Java is (for the most part) upward compatible, especially at the binary-level, I think it is not a problem ; also, I never seen this explained as a weakness of Java which could reduce its desktop adoption (except on Wikipedia..).

Isn't this a reference to the old conflict between the Microsoft Java VM and the Sun Java VM? In that case, there really were incompatibilities. Which IMHO, was a pretty shitty thing to do on MS's part. However, the lawyers settled this and now Sun's VM is considered the "real one" and others that are developed (open source ones for example) are modelled after the Sun one, for compatibility. Especially since the vast amount of platforms on which a Java VM is supported, this seems to be a thing of the past. Just my 2 cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.108.218 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• The claims seen on the net are Java memory usage, Java mostly don't follow platform GUI guidelines, extra-step to deploy Java-based apps (even if it is the same with a lot of other frameworks), and Java being non-free in the past. Hervegirod 12:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the rest of the World

If this article is going to talk about the language/API that Sun created, then it should mention each of the implementations. Java is a successful technology and has fostered a community and a market of it's own. The current text makes it look like Java is something that only Sun is interested in, and no one else wants to, feels a need to, or sees a reason to develop this technology. ...which obviously isn't true.

If, on the other hand, this article is to be limited to Sun's Java implementations, then it should be renamed as such and the discussion of the general Java technology (which Sun develops/defines) should be moved to an article that is broad and inclusive.

I think the broad approach is better - aiming to make this a "top level" article for Java, rather than limiting it to the overlap of the technology and the company. To broaden this, info can be found on free Java implementations (about GNU Classpath, GNU Compiler for Java, Kaffe, Apache Harmony, etc.). There is also Blackdown Java, and probably others. Gronky 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Convention is that merge discussion takes place on the mergee, but adding a note here as a heads-yp. These articles cover the same ground, and regardless of the final title there should only be one of them. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose that this article be moved over the redirect Java Platform. The current disambig parenthetical (Sun) is self-defeating in that it is highly ambiguous, as it could be interpreted as being the name of a star. "Java Platform" is the official proper name of the subject being addressed in the article and will not require disambiguation for the foreseeable future. If "platform" is too specific, other candidates might be Java (software) or Java (computing). In any case, (Sun) has to go. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• rename to' Java (computing), since "Platform" requires a person know what a computing platform is, instead of say, an oil platform off the coast of the island of Java. 70.55.200.157 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Java (computing) makes the most sense. Klausness (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Java Platform" is not an "official proper name"; it's a random subset of the various "official proper names" that the platform currently goes by. It's no less contrived than "Java (Sun)". Both "Java (software)" and "Java (computing)" are ambiguous because of the existence of Java (programming language). I'd settle for Java (software platform) as a compromise, but the other suggestions thus far are definitely inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I like Java (software platform). Brainsik (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisting as -> Java (software platform), which I support. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In all its incarnations it is known as "Java Platform", appended by a particular edition. They are all referred to as "Java Platform", however.[1] It is blatantly obvious that this is an appropriate title, though whether it is the best title for the wiki is another question. If you know of any other nomenclature that is used consistently in official documents, please share some examples with us. Java (software platform) is fine by me, as the only difference is using the trademark vs using a generic phrase. Also, I don't consider Java (programming language) to be a problem for ambiguity, as the language is in fact part of the platform. That is, if you wanted to reference the Java language, you would not be incorrect in linking this article, even though a more specific article exists. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr, Sun doesn't hold a trademark for "Java Platform". As for consistency, there's really no such thing in this particular case. The only constant is "Java", so rather than second-guessing we should just use "Java" and disambiguate it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:naming conventions don't place any emphasis on what is used in official documents, whether consistently or otherwise, rather they focus on what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, which may or may not be the same thing. While I respect your opinion that it is blatantly obvious that the correct title is Java Platform, some of us disagree. Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Java's Critisism?

Why is there nothing about Java's criticism? For example, many people complain that Java runs to slow, and teaches bad habits to beginning programmers. Bit101 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There's already a whole article devoted to Criticism of Java. There's also a smaller Criticism section in the Java (programming language) article, so I think we have enough material on this subject (adding more sections about that would duplicate already existing material). I have linked the Criticism of Java article in the See also section. Hervegirod (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Java Logo.svg

The image Image:Java Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

history section

First sentence in the history section broken and I can't fix it myself. ike9898 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

64-bit support

Does Java have 64-bit support? 83.108.194.198 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Haakon (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Native? And for both open source and Sun Microsystem version? 83.108.194.198 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, check out the different downloads here. OpenJDK can be built for 64-bit. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by native. A 64-bit build does not give you access to a different set of primitives, for instance. Haakon (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was Flash Player I thought as of having only 32-bit support... 83.108.194.198 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I should say that until recently, there was no 64-bit Java browser plugin. That changed less than half a year ago, I think. Also, there is now a 64-bit flash plugin for Linux. Haakon (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

c programming language

how is pointer initialized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.162.38 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)