Re: ADTPro beta available

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> The critical thing is: whose bug is it if a Java application fails to
> run on a particular system?
>
> If it runs on all other implementations of Java (and meets the specs
> for a valid Java application), then the bug is in the implementation
> of the Java platform on the non-functioning system.
>
> If it does not run on other implementations of Java (and violates the
> specs in some way), then the bug is in the application.  (BTW, if such
> an invalid application *does* run on some Java implementation, there is
> a likelihood that that implementation also contains a bug.)
>
> *That's* the strong test for what is a "platform".

I'm not sure I like this definition either :-) Many platforms have only
a single implementation, yet the definition still stands.

> I think you have a much to restrictive notion of "platform".
>
> A more useful definition of a platform is any layer of uniformity that
> enables a common market in applications.  (Unix, for example, never
> quite made it to this status, mostly for competitive reasons.)

It's interesting to watch the commercial Unix's being replaced bit by
bit with Linux, which provides a consistent API across essentially all
the hardware 'platforms' that commerical Unix's ran on, plus then some.

> For this to be viable, the platform definition must be sufficiently
> "complete" that one does not need to go outside it to write useful
> applications, and it must be sufficiently "strong" that a single
> testing regime is sufficient for deployment on all implementations
> of the platform.

I agree in essence with this definition.

My point is, I currently have 3 Java applications open as I write this.
None of them feels like a different platform to me, they just behave
like any other Windows application. The net effect is more closely
aligned with the concept of a cross-platform framework than that of a
platform. In fact most people would not be able to tell the Java
programs from the Windows programs.

I guess you could say it fits the definition from the development
perspective, but not from the deployment or user perspectives.

> > ..NET does have one advantage over Java though: .NET is a multi-language
> > environment - there are at least a few languages available for .NET.
> > I suppose that's why that environment is called ".NET" rather than "C#"....
>
> In fact, .NET and the CLI create a platform whose implementations span
> Windows XP, Windows CE, and other embedded Windows environments--with
> the appropriate resource and functionality subsetting that is required.
>
> This is, in fact, the problem that it was meant to solve.

It does do this. One could call this a subset of the problem space Java
was meant to solve, as it also manages to solve those problems, and
extends to being able to solve server side problems as well, and isn't
limited to Windows environments.

> The fact is that for Microsoft, the CLI is an implementation tool to
> simplify their own and their developers' processes, particularly the
> deployment of mini-applications.
>
> For Sun, Java was, and remains, a weapon against the dominance of the
> Windows platform.
>
> There is little truth, beauty, or sweetness in any of these approaches.
> It's just business.  ;-)

For sure. It seems obvious to me which one is more beneficial to the
consumer however, and it's certainly nice that ADTPro can run on
(essentially) all currently used systems, and the odd obsolete one as
well.
 
Matt