Talk:Java Platform

Java pages cleanup

Given the recent change in the Java naming conventions [1], the Java articles will need a cleanup, possibly including moves in a few cases and redirects put in the place of their current names. Sorry, I wasn't sure where to add this in the form of something like a VFD (and couldn't find it in the FAQ), so I figured here would be as good a start as any. aidan_walsh

The great thing about Java is that you can run programs in a web browser directly off the web without having to trust the people who wrote the software. This makes it ideally suited for providing examples, and yet these do not seem to be readily available yet. So, to get things moving, here is an example application which allows editing and publishing of full frame rate video over the web: FORscene.

Disambiguation with Javascript

Shouldn't there be a disambig statement at the top of the article for javascript? The javascript page mentions the differences in its first section. As a layman, it is pretty confusing to me since as I understand it, browsers can use both. Spalding 13:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is already a disambiguation at the top of Java programming language. I don't think there's need for one here. – Smyth\^talk 15:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it's even worse than I thought then. I got to the page from a link using the word Java, so I didn't even notice this article is about a Java platform as opposed to the Java language. I now think the remedy is to put a wikilink to Java much higher up in the article than it currently is, so I will do that now. Spalding 20:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition

The sections in the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition article that list and summarize the packages are better served by the Javadoc API documentation and should be removed. (Compare Java SE 19 API Javadocs to the list of packages in the article—the article is nearly a complete subset.) Once these are removed, there is very little left in the J2SE article.

The only really relevant thing that needs to be discussed regarding the platform is to describe the distinction between the platform and the language and explain what constitutes the platform, and that is well-discussed in this article. Therefore, this is less of a merge request (although some changes are probably necessary in this document) than a delete request for Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition. This same logic probably also applies to the Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition and Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition pages, although there would be more content to merge into this article in those cases. I think all of the platform distinctions would be better discussed as sections in a single article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate. I'm not so sure I agree. It seems to me that each platform is sufficiently important to merit its own article, even if at first labeled a stub. Maybe we could highlight important packages and their common uses, etc. In the Enterprise Edition article, we could talk about it being a framework/specification rather than an implementation. We could link to articles about servers and distributed architecture (maybe summarize them in the article with a link to the main article). These are just a couple of ideas. Just because each article isn't up to its potential doesn't mean it should be merged. - ElAmericano | talk 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed merge suggestion Since this generated almost no discussion in about a month, I removed the merge request, for now. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Anonymous User

An anonymous user (68.44.67.224) added the following material to the main page, which I've moved to here:

 Author seems a bit biased. "copied from Java" is heavey to use - in fact - 
 in many cases it can be safely assumed the other way. Runtime is not a new 
 concept, OOP is not an innovation Java either - generics, indexers etc are 
 not started in Java first. concept of packages (or namespaces) was also not 
 new - neither exceptions nor interfaces. Even MVC  is not from Java alone. 
 If any one worked for long enough time in  both Java and C++/VC++/VB worlds 
 or in other languages such as SmallTalk and ADA - they can easily ruleout 
 this innovation concept in Java. I am not stating that Java is not 
 innovative but every language / platform started and improved as a part of 
 evolution. In fact most of the .NET ideas are now being incorporated in 
 Tiger and Mustang. It is always give and take. Please note that C++, VC++, 
 VB and SMALLTALK are long enough in the industry to mature and also much 
 older than Java. Applets may the innovation but again as I mentioned - all 
 languages are evolutionary in nature

I agree with all the comments above; Java is a highly successful language for a number of reasons, but there is a widespread tendency in discussions to give Sun credit for creating things from scratch that really existed before, whereas Sun gathered together a lot of great ideas into one platform and implemented them very well. This is in fact the status of most technological "innovations"--they build highly upon prerequisite experience from all sorts of arenas. Not to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for Java, but I think it important to maintain NPOV here.Harborsparrow 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

removed two paragraphs; reasoning on this

I just removed two paragraphs from the description of the JVM because I felt they could possibly be seen as misleading. I am archiving them here, with my appreciation for previous authors who contributed this material.

PARAGRAPH 1: "This is not to say that one can truly compile Java code to its fullest extent (in order to reap the benefits of speedy native machine code). There are "compilers" available that will attempt this feat, but not all Java libraries have a machine code equivalent. For instance, the "reflect" library, which allows Java programmers to delve into instructions only available at runtime, is not well represented (if at all) by machine code."

COMMENT on P1: As I stated in the replacement sentence, native code cached in memory is exactly as fast as any native code once the JIT-compilation is done. Reflection is the act of reading the meta-data out of the bytecode. This is file I/O and it compiles to machine code like anything else. Just because there is no equivalent to reflection in some languages doesn't mean that the code which executes reflection is necessarily slow once compiled. Of course there are things the JVM can do to make reflection slower or faster. This paragraph is not about those things, and I felt it was misleading and hence I removed it. I did teach architecture quite a while and I've had a good review of this material; the subtle inaccuracy (if it can be called that) shown here is very commonly misunderstood by students.

PARAGRAPH 2: "Java was not the first virtual-machine-based platform, though it is successful and well-known. Previous uses for virtual machine technology primarily involved emulators to aid development for not-yet-developed hardware or operating systems, but the JVM was designed to be implemented entirely in software, while making it easy to efficiently port an implementation to hardware of all kinds."

COMMENT on P2: I felt this is weak and at least incomplete if not inaccurate. There have historically been many uses of virtual machines in software, including for example the p-code intermediate language used for Visual Basic for about 15 years before Java was ever conceived. I believe that the concept of a virtual machine is discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia and this information ought to be covered thoroughly there.Harborsparrow 15:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Java Platform is the world's most broadly deployed open source software technology

Yeah? Are you sure about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.67.213.211 (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC).deden?

Merge

This and Java (Sun) cover much the same ground. The platform theoretically comprises everything touched by Java, so there's no reason to have a separate article for the term. There's currently a lot of duplication. Chris Cunningham 10:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)