Scapegoating for Java crisis on Mac OS X

So, pretty much all Java developers working on Mac OS X are filling up the blogosphere (sorry for using the cheesy term) screaming how Apple left them behind not releasing Java 6 for Leopard. This article (via DF) summarizes the overall sentiment (and somewhat hysterical atmosphere). Apple's own java-dev list is another place where people are raising concerned voices.

It's understandable where this outcry comes from. Go to any major Java conference. The Mac laptops are totally over-represented in the audience.

I could well be among them. I'm guilty of amplifying the "Macs are everywhere" effect at conferences myself with my MacBook Pro. I too am a Java developer working on Mac OS X.

I just see a different perspective to things. First off, it always struck me as actually very unnatural that Sun ships Java for Windows, Linux, and Solaris, but does not ship it for Mac OS X. I don't feel let down by Apple here.

I feel let down by Sun.

Sun already publishes a JDK and JRE for three different OS platforms. How hard would it be for them to publish it for Mac OS X as well?

It appeared to me that Sun just recently started natively supporting OpenOffice on Mac OS X. The concept is not completely alien to them, then.

Looking realistically, what is the supposed rationale behind having Apple ship Java for Mac OS X? My educated guess is that the reasons are twofold:

One, OS X was originally so small marketshare-wise that Sun simply couldn't be bothered. They probably had they doubts about the success of the OS. So Apple undertook porting Java to increase the potential software base of the OS and its overall utility. Remember, Mac OS X at the time was still quite young. Hopefully this has changed by now, especially seeing how lots of Sun employees also use Mac OS X. So there's me hoping that in 2007, Sun could actually be bothered.

Two, Apple provided some Apple-specific functionality, like Swing that looks almost like native Mac UI, plus a Cocoa bridge (which is not updated to keep up with Cocoa improvements for quite some time, and is declared by Apple to not be updated ever again).

Don't get me wrong, but the vast majority of Java developers on Mac doesn't give a shit about either Swing or Java-Cocoa bridge, or anything else there might be. Java isn't doing particularly well on desktops; strong Java market is on the server side. As a consequence, vast majority of Java developers don't deploy their software on Mac OS X. They deploy it on enterprise irons that typically run Linux or Solaris. I'm in this crowd.

Let me repeat: I don't give a flying shit about Mac OS X specific Java functionality. If I wanted to write a Mac desktop app, I'd use Objective-C. If I wanted to write a cross-platform desktop app (ha!), I'd probably first talk myself out of it, and if I really couldn't, I'd go for SWT. I'd be more than happy with Java on Mac that allows me to do my command line and server side stuff. I wouldn't care that it has us an ugly looking UI with Swing (as it does on all other platforms, anyway).

And I firmly believe it is Sun's job to give us one, not Apple's.

If you're following what Apple is doing with its developer strategy, it'd be clear to you Apple doesn't have any interest in Java on Mac OS X, and I can't actually blame them for that. Apple is slowly abandoning lots of technologies. It is slowly abandoning Carbon (Carbon will have no 64 bit support, ever). Apple is slowly abandoning non-Cocoa QuickTime bindings (they too will have no 64 bit support). Apple's developer strategy is unification: everything is Cocoa and Objective-C.

In an interesting twist that seemingly (but only seemingly) contradicts what I wrote above about unification, Apple ships Ruby and Python bundled with the OS. However, please observe that both of these are (a) open source and (b) support compiling on Mac OS X in their mainline source code. That is to say, the original developers of the code provide OS X support by sprinkling required #ifdef blocks around the code. Apple just needs to take it and bundle it, without further tailoring. That's what they do. To Apple, Python and Ruby are just Darwin-level tools. And even if they didn't bundle it, it'd be trivial for anyone to compile them from the source and install. Fink and DarwinPorts can give you newer versions of either if you need them. Neither (a) nor (b) can be said of Java. OpenJDK is not Java. Not yet. Sun is definitely heading in the right direction with open sourcing Java, but they started too late to avoid this particular crisis.

Relying on Apple to deliver the Mac part of the WORA promise was a mistake, one that could be easily seen by anyone for years, as Mac users were getting their JDK updates with six months or longer delays compared to platforms serviced by Sun. Sun would've had plenty of time to act upon this mistake.

Again, is it Apple's fault that we don't have an industry-grade open-source Java implementation that supports Mac OS X in its mainline source code? I don't think so. If you want to be angry at someone, or better yet, you want to petition someone about the situation, please direct your energies at Sun.

UPDATES:

• OS X Java Definitive Timeline shows the problem of letting Apple - a party for who Java is low-priority business - take care of delivering it on its platform: worst lag in release schedule was 21 months for Java 1.4 to show up in Mac OS X.


• Also there, Comic: Apple’s Pathetic Java Support? Oh Really? saying

  Dear Steve,
  
  Writing your own JDK is really hard. Maybe you should follow Microsoft’s lead and let Sun do the dirty work?

  Well, yeah, if only Sun wanted to do it.


• In Shipping means prioritizing Gruber also reinforces my point:

  Perl, Python, and Ruby pretty much compile out of the box on Mac OS X. Apple doesn’t have to do much at all — at least relative to Java — to include them on Mac OS X. Why? Because that’s how these tools are designed and engineered — they’re made to “just build” on any Unix-like OS. It’s not Apple’s responsibility that Java isn’t like that — it’s Sun’s.

  He's also quite confident we'll see Java 6 in Mac OS shipped soon, if the timeline above is any indication.

Fastest Vista laptop is MacBook Pro

According to PC World's "The Most Notable Notebooks of 2007" article, of all laptops they tested this year, the one that runs Windows Vista fastest is - MacBook Pro! They conclude with:

... MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows.

(Via Daring Fireball)

Linux preinstalled on Acer laptops - a scam?

Here's a bit of a firsthand bitter experience with laptops and Linux from last week. (It's also another hard reminder why I run Apple computer gear exclusively for myself for two years now.)

My wife's aunt wanted to buy herself a computer. She wanted the "usual" functionality, y'know, browse the web, e-mail, listen to music, watch movies, online chat. It also must have a hungarian UI. I suggested she gets a desktop computer, but she insisted on a laptop. Oh well, it's her money.

Her budget was half of what you'd need for a MacBook. Not wanting to enrich Microsoft's Windows division, I suggested we get a laptop that comes with Linux preinstalled. I had some successes installing Ubuntu Linux on some machines lately (one of them an oldie IBM ThinkPad where Ubuntu even recognized the PCMCIA wireless card without a hitch). Also, seeing how she lives 100 km from here, I didn't feel like doing tech support on it often, which is something I believe I would end up doing with Windows (if my wife's machine is any indication).

My argument was that for the same money, we'll get a stronger machine, since the manufacturer didn't have to scale back the hardware budget to accomodate a Windows license.

We ended up buying an Acer Aspire 5315 that's distributed locally in a Linux configuration for 120000 HUF (660 USD).

Now, the first thing is that it comes with a Linux distribution named "Linpus Linux". There's no install CD so I can't reinstall it if anything goes wrong. Also, I can't install any graphical interface. That's right. In 2007, a machine equipped with a 1280x800 screen, gigabit ethernet, wifi, DVD burner, and bluetooth comes with a preinstalled OS that dumps you to a shell prompt upon boot. No graphical environment whatsoever is preinstalled. I've tinkered with it a bit, and noticed it doesn't actually bring up the wireless network interface. We'll see later why.

Ok, so let's install a proper Linux on it. I started with Freespire - it's an Ubuntu derivative, but comes with non-free media codecs. Just what I need, so auntie doesn't nag me later that she can't play back MP3 and WMA files. It went up without a hitch, but I hit exactly three problems with it:

• Sound drivers claim to work, but no sound comes out.


• The Atheros wifi chipset is too new, so it's not yet supported by pci_ath


• An attempt to install hungarian language ends up with error message saying qt_language_selector is not found

Trust me, I've spent fair ammount of time browsing all sorts of support forums to solve these, but had to throw in the towel in the end.

Next, I tried a mainline Ubuntu distro (Feisty Fawn). This ended rather quickly - I got dumped into a BusyBox command prompt by the installer. Turns out FF doesn't recognize the chipset, and thus can't detect the hard disk drive properly, and as a last ditch measure gives me a command prompt. Geez...

At this point, I decided to give Windows XP a try. I had a copy of WXP SP 2 at hand, so I tried installing that if only to see whether the sound might be defective in hardware (if WXP drives the sound chip, then it's apparently not). To my utter surprise and disbelief, WXP installer also failed to recognize there is a HDD in the machine. Ouch. Friends are telling me that I'd need to provide the installer with SATA drivers externally. Yeah. Provided I can find them. And then there's the minor issue that Windows XP installer only accepts external drivers through a - you guessed it - floppy drive! Yes, there are USB FDDs. I've also heard some newer BIOSes can present a USB pen drive as a floppy. Still, what would've it taken to write the damn thing so that it can accept external drivers from a CD?

Back to Linux - there's another Ubuntu derivative named Kiwi. I chose it because, similar to Freespire, it comes with nonfree codecs preinstalled, and can be installed in Hungarian language by default, so Freespire's language selector problems at least won't trouble me. It was also based on next Ubuntu release - Gutsy Gibbon.

Well, what can I say. It did boot and install, but the sound still didn't work, and I still couldn't get wifi to work. Yes, I did try ndiswrapper with Windows drivers, but even after I blacklisted pci_ath and rebooted, some part of the OS still pulled pci_ath, which took precedence, but was unable to drive the new chipset.

So, I had to admit defeat. I wasted sunday evening, monday evening, and part of tuesday evening on this. My time is worth more to me than this.

So I phoned an IT shop in the city and asked them for a quotation on Windows Vista Home Basic. (Seeing how XP doesn't install, how Acer itself suggests Vista, and how the driver CD only contains Vista drivers.) With Vista, sound works (not a hardware problem then), wireless works. All hardware works.

But here's my question: why does a company sell a computer with Linux preinstalled if there's no Linux distribution currently on planet that can, installed out of the box, correctly drive all of its hardware? What can be said of such a marketing practice? In case of Acer Aspire 5315, at least the wireless and audio didn't work (and I haven't tested either the Bluetooth or the DVD burner, so I can't say they either work or don't).

If they aren't aware of the hardware support limitations, shame on them for being unprofessional. If they are aware of it, shame on them for enticing us on purchasing the machine by representing that it has an OS installed appropriate for it. Duh.

Vista install is running as I'm writing this. I'm cheering myself up thinking of how next time I'll be installing an OS it'll be Leopard on my two Macs.

Language trendspotting at JAOO

Surveying the talks this year at JAOO, it is hard not to notice that nobody is getting too excited about either Java or C# anymore.

Ruby of course had a full track to itself on monday, and a track named "Enterprise Application Frameworks" on Wednesday was also pretty much Ruby/Rails dominated.

On the other hand, other languages were in the limelight too. We had a great introductory presentation on Erlang by Joe Armstrong, one of the principal inventors of the language. Erlang is the old-new contestant for the title of "right answer to concurrency challenge", and it really looks like it solves the challenge correctly for a fair ammount of use cases I can think of. Basically, whenever you can afford a share-nothing message passing architecture.

We also had a presentation of Scala. Scala must be my favorite language for about two years now even if I didn't write anything in it yet :-). You just got to love all the modern amenities in it that are missing from Java: type inference, very good syntax for map and list literals, closures, a really polished generics implementation (it allows contravariance, by golly!), plus assorted functional programming goodies, not the least of them being Haskell-style datatypes. Oh, and it is static and compiles to a plain Java .class, creating a very low (virtually nonexistent) entry barrier for gradual introduction into your existing Java code.

Oh, and people are talking about JavaScript as well :-)

Glenn Vanderburg gave a talk titled "The Overlooked Power of JavaScript", which was exactly what it said. The language had quite an injustice done to it because of its unfortunate name choosing -- as we know and as Glenn pointed it out correctly, it is not related to Java at all, its ancestry comes from Scheme and NewtonScript (useless trivia: I actually wrote a commercial application for Newton in NewtonScript back in 1996).

JavaScript is an incredibly powerful language if you can get rid of the preconception that you need to handle it as you'd handle Java. Once you get past that and actually understand how things work in it, you can develop some mightily beautiful code in JavaScript, as the extreme dynamism of the language allows you refactorings simply not possible in more constrained languages. You can end up with some very tight internal DSLs. And I'm not talking only about code to run in a web browser -- I'm talking about applications running on desktop or on a web server.

To demonstrate the power of the language even further, there was a presentation of Flapjax on JAOO this year. Flapjax feels like a language, but in reality it is "just" a JavaScript library, but one that allows you to program your browser-run client applications in an event driven manner, plus supporting reactive evaluation (think self-recalculating cells in Excel) when events change values. "Event" in Flapjax can be almost anything -- a tick of a timer, a click of a mouse, asynchronous completion of a HTTP request, and so on. You can concisely express your program in terms of reactions to such events, and also always preserve consistent internal state of all variables thanks to its self-recalculations, all with fairly intuitive syntax. That's quite a something from "just a library" in JavaScript :-) Flapjax was covered on LtU as well about a year ago.

So, all-in-all, language diversity is again in fashion. Developers seem to finally recognize that a language is just a part of their toolbox, and that you need to choose the right tool for the right job. Of course, I know that the same developers usually need to also convince their managers about this point of view, but fortunately this seems like it'll become easier with language diversity now being an accepted trend at respected conferences.