March 10, 2005 4:00 AM PST
Newsmaker: What's wrong with the Java community process?
See all Newsmakers
Now IBM software is a $15 billion business, happy to use its market clout to influence standards and push open-source software.
But where does a $96 billion behemoth find rapid growth? For IBM, the answer lies in emerging markets around the world and among midsize companies. That's why winning over developers and application providers is a critical goal for IBM's software chief, Steve Mills. The senior vice president and group executive recently spoke with CNET News.com about the company's strategy and weighed in on what he thinks is wrong with the Java community process.
Q: I've spoken with some people who say IBM is fed up with the Java Community Process (which oversees changes to Java). Is IBM dissatisfied?Mills: We've been vocal on how we think the Java Community Process can improve. It's a community process as long as Sun (Microsystems) agrees with what the community decides to do. Our position has been Java would be better served if it existed in a more democratic standards process, rather than one where one company had super-majority rights over everyone else.
I think the community process works well at times. And at other times it gets bogged in, "Well, what does Sun want?" It ceases to be less a community at that point. But we knew that going in, so there's nothing new there as far as this issue is concerned. We have the view that the market of Java licensees--and for that matter, even Sun--could be better served by an alternative approach. They incur a lot of expense today they would not have to incur if the process operated differently.
Sun has voiced concerns that a change to the process, such as an open-source project model, would result in forking of the standard. Do you think that's a valid concern?
Mills: Well, no. That's silly. Standards can be sustained through standards bodies. If something is Java, it's certifiable to be Java and could be called Java only if it's certifiable as Java. Otherwise you're in violation of a trademark. That can be enforced through a standards-body structure, just as it can be by an individual (company), so I don't see that as a problem.
As open-source products move into more and more areas, will there be more pressure on your low-end Express line? Will you have to charge less for it down the road?
Mills: I'm already as cheap as anything out there. I have no problem with (open-source database company) MySQL, (open-source Java application server) JBoss or those things. I price at the same level for that level of use.
But those products are still worth your development investment?
Mills: The efficiency of development brought on by componentization and design means that for very nominal increments, I can take the basic structure and apply it at the lower end of the market and afford to put a very low price on it. And I hope that, frankly, some customers at the bottom will want more function over time.
The IBM software group has acquired many companies in the past few years--
Mills: We've bought 40 companies in ten years.
How do you choose which companies to acquire?
Mills: We're not buying out of the blue. It's not "Gee, that's interesting, maybe I should buy it" kind of thing. It's not spontaneous purchasing behavior at all. It's a well-thought out set of notions about things we think we need in our portfolio to meet customer requirements. The acquisitions have worked well as a technique, because we choose
See more CNET content tagged:
Steve Mills, JCP, Java, IBM Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc.
I guess Mills didn't do his homework...
I guess Mills didn't do his homework...
Awwww... shucks.
Ain't that a bummer?
Awwww... shucks.
Ain't that a bummer?
If Sun would support compiling to machine language, and direct access to memory(keeping the safety nets unlike C/C++), I think Java would start to see some serious success. They have really made speed a non-issue in most standard apps and networking, to the point that Java can run as fast as a lot of C++ apps, although loading a large java app still is painfully slow. Allowing native compilation and direct memory/register access should fix any remaining speed issues. Third party java compilers that compile to machine code are hit and miss, mostly miss. Keep the JVM, especially for applets(they really don't need to get as unsecure as MS proprietary garbage), but for apps as well, but give an option for native compilation.
I think the worse thing Sun could do is completely open up its standards for a free for all. The language would soon become a fractured mess. Even scripting languages that embrace open source, like perl, are kept a tight reign by its creator and a few others, but anyone can add to the language through modules. Perl has gone far beyond it original intent, alot of that is due to 3rd party developers, but the core has remained a fairly small language that can be extending in countless directions at need.
Java can be extended by IBM all they want, but keep it out of the core standard. Any language needs a firm hand to keep it under control. Two competing corporations that profit from Java and can direct it is a recipie for disaster.
Even with Sun staying in control they are messing with the language a bit too much. With v1.5.0 they added the needless generic nonsense, but even with that, it is still a fairly clean language, and needs to stay that way.
- One set of hands on the steering wheel isn't a bad thing
- by Bill Dautrive March 12, 2005 11:40 PM PST
- I like java and use it for as much as I can. It is a far more elegant language then the syntax swamp that is C++, which became that way by committee. Last I heard the current C++ standards committee is looking to mess the core language up even more, by incororating the excellent Boost libraries. There is no need to do that, especially when they should be cleaning up the language.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)If Sun would support compiling to machine language, and direct access to memory(keeping the safety nets unlike C/C++), I think Java would start to see some serious success. They have really made speed a non-issue in most standard apps and networking, to the point that Java can run as fast as a lot of C++ apps, although loading a large java app still is painfully slow. Allowing native compilation and direct memory/register access should fix any remaining speed issues. Third party java compilers that compile to machine code are hit and miss, mostly miss. Keep the JVM, especially for applets(they really don't need to get as unsecure as MS proprietary garbage), but for apps as well, but give an option for native compilation.
I think the worse thing Sun could do is completely open up its standards for a free for all. The language would soon become a fractured mess. Even scripting languages that embrace open source, like perl, are kept a tight reign by its creator and a few others, but anyone can add to the language through modules. Perl has gone far beyond it original intent, alot of that is due to 3rd party developers, but the core has remained a fairly small language that can be extending in countless directions at need.
Java can be extended by IBM all they want, but keep it out of the core standard. Any language needs a firm hand to keep it under control. Two competing corporations that profit from Java and can direct it is a recipie for disaster.
Even with Sun staying in control they are messing with the language a bit too much. With v1.5.0 they added the needless generic nonsense, but even with that, it is still a fairly clean language, and needs to stay that way.