JOB REFERRALS
    ON THIS PAGE
    ARCHIVES
    CATEGORIES
    BLOGROLL
    LINKS
    SEARCH
    MY BOOKS
    DISCLAIMER
 
 Sunday, October 24, 2010
Thoughts on an Apple/Java divorce

A small degree of panic set in amongst the Java development community over the weekend, as Apple announced that they were “de-emphasizing” Java on the Mac OS. Being the Big Java Geek that I am, I thought I’d weigh in on this.

Let the pundits speak

But first, let’s see what the actual news reports said:

As of the release of Java for Mac OS X 10.6 Update 3, the Java runtime ported by Apple and that ships with Mac OS X is deprecated. Developers should not rely on the Apple-supplied Java runtime being present in future versions of Mac OS X.

The Java runtime shipping in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, and Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, will continue to be supported and maintained through the standard support cycles of those products.

--Apple Developer Documentation

MacRumors reported that Scott Fraser, the CEO of Portico Systems, a developer of Enterprise software written in Java, wrote Steve Jobs an e-mail asking if Apple was killing off Java on the Max. Mr. Fraser posted a screenshot of his e-mail and what he said was a reply from Mr. Jobs.

In that reply. Mr. Jobs wrote, “Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms. They have their own release schedules, which are almost always different than ours, so the Java we ship is always a version behind. This may not be the best way to do it.” …

There’s only one problem with that, however, and that’s the small fact that Oracle (used to be Sun) doesn’t actually supply Java for all other platforms, at least not according to Java creator James Gosling, who said in a blog post Friday, “It simply isn’t true that ‘Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms’. IBM supplies Java for IBM’s platforms, HP for HP’s, even Azul systems does the JVM for their systems (admittedly, these all start with code from Snorcle - but then, so does Apple).”

Mr. Gosling also pointed out that it’s true that Sun (now Oracle) does supply Java for Windows, but only because Sun took it away from Microsoft after Big Redmond tried its “embrace and extend” strategy of crippling Java’s cross-platform capabilities by adding Windows-only features in the port it had been developing.

--The Mac Observer

Seeing that they're not hurting for money at all (see Apple makes more than $1.6M revenue per employee), there are two possible answers here:

  1. Oracle, the new owner of Java, is forcing Apple's hand, just like they're going after Google for their Java implementation.
  2. This is Apple's back-handed way of keeping Java apps out of the newly announced Mac App Store.

I don't have any contacts inside Apple, my guess is #2, this is Apple's way of keeping Java applications out of the Mac App Store, which was also announced yesterday. I don't believe there's any coincidence at all that (a) the "Java Deprecation" announcement was made in the Java update release notes at the same time (b) a similar statement was placed in the Mac Developer Program License Agreement.

--devdaily.com

Pundit responses (including the typically childish response from James Gosling, and something I’ve never found very appealing about his commentary, to be honest), check. Hype machine working overtime on this, check. Twitter-stream filled with people posting “I just signed the Apple-Java petition!” and overreacting to the current state of affairs overall, check.

My turn

Ted’s take?

About frickin’ time.

You heard me: it’s about frickin’ time that Apple finally owned up to a state of affairs that has been pretty obvious for more than a few years now.

Look, I understand that a lot of the Java developers out there bought Macs because they could (it ran a pretty decent version of Java) and because there was a certain je ne sais quois about doing so—after all, they were watching the “cool kids” (for a certain definition thereof) switching over to a Mac, and they seemed to be getting away with it, the thought “Why not me too?” was bound to go off in somebody’s head before long. And hey, let’s admit it, “going Mac” was a pretty nifty “geek” thing to do for a while there, particularly because the iPhone was just ramping up and we could all see that this was a platform we all of us wanted a part of.

But truth is, this divorce was a long time coming, and heavily overdue. C’mon, kids, you knew it was coming—when Mom and Dad rarely even talk to each other anymore, when one’s almost never around when the other is in front of you, when one tells you that the other isn’t really relevant anymore, or when one of them really just stops participating in anything going on in the other’s world, you can tell that something’s “up”. This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anybody who was paying attention.

Apple and Sun barely ever spoke to each other, particularly after Apple chose to deprecate the Java APIs for accessing the nifty-cool Mac OS X Aqua user interface. Even back then, Apple never really wanted to see much Java on the desktop—the Aqua Look-And-Feel for Swing was only available from the Mac JDK, for example, and it was some kind of licensing infraction to try and move it to another platform (or so the rumors said—I never bothered to look it up).

Apple never participated in any of the JSRs that were being moved through the JCP, or if they did, they were never JSRs that had any sort of “weight” in the Java world. (At least, not to my knowledge; I’ve done no Google search through the JCP to see if Apple ever had a representative on any of the JSRs, but in all the years I’ve read through JSRs in-process, Apple’s name never seemed to appear in the Expert Committee list.)

Apple never showed up at JavaOne to talk about Java-on-Mac, or about Java-on-anything-else, for that matter. For crying out loud, people, Microsoft has been at JavaOne. I know—they paid me to be at the booth last year, and they covered my T&E to speak on their behalf (about .NET/Java compatibility/interoperability) at other .NET and/or Java conferences. Microsoft cared more about Java than Apple did, plain and simple.

And Mr. Jobs has clearly no love for interpreted/virtual machine languages, if his commentary and vendetta against Flash is anything to go by. (Some will point out that LLVM is a virtual machine, but I think this is a red herring for a few reasons, not least of which is that as near as I can tell, LLVM isn’t allowed on the iOS machines any more than a JVM or CLR is. On top of that, the various LLVM personalities involved routinely draw a line of differentiation between LLVM and its “virtual machine” cousins, the JVM and CLR.)

The fact is, folks, this is a long time coming. Does this mean your shiny new Mac Book Air is no longer a viable Java development platform? Maybe—you could always drop Ubuntu on it, or run a VMWare Virtual Machine to run your favorite Java development OS on it (which is something I’ve been doing for years, by the way, and I gotta tell you, Windows 7 on VMWare Fusion on an old non-unibody MacBookPro is a pretty good experience), or just not upgrade to Lion at all. Which may not be a bad idea anyway, seeing as how Mac OS X seems to be creeping towards the same state of “unusable on the first release” that Windows is at. (Mac fanboi’s, please don’t argue with this one—ask anyone who wanted to play StarCraft 2 how wonderful the Mac experience was.)

The Mac is a wonderful machine, and a wonderful OS. I won’t argue with that. Nor will I argue with the assertion that Java is a wonderful language and platform. I’ll even argue with people who say that Java “can’t” do desktop apps—that’s pure bullshit, particularly if you talk to people who’ve got more than five minutes’ worth of experience doing nifty things on the Java desktop (like Chet Haase and Romain Guy do in Filthy Rich Clients or Andrew Davison in Killer Game Programming in Java). Lord knows, the desktop experience could be better in Java…. but much of Java’s weakness in the desktop space was due to a lack of resources being thrown at it.

Going forward

For the short term, as quoted above, Java on Snow Leopard is a fait accompli. Don’t panic. It’s only with the release of Lion, sometime mid-2011, that Java will quietly disappear from the Mac horizon. (And even then, I expect that there will probably be some kind of hack that the Mac community comes up with to put the Snow Leopard-based JVM on a Lion box. Assuming Apple doesn’t somehow put in a hack to prevent it.)

The bigger question, of course, is the one facing all those “super-hip” developers who bought Macs thinking that they would use that to develop their enterprise Java apps and deploy the resulting compiled artifacts to a “real” production server system, like Linux, Windows, or Google App Engine—what to do, what to do?

There’s a couple of ways this plays out, depending on Apple’s intent:

  1. Apple turns to Oracle, says “OpenJDK is the path forward for Java on the Mac—enjoy!” and bails out completely.
  2. Apple turns to Oracle, says “OpenJDK is the path forward for Java on the Mac, and here’s all the extensions that we wrote for Java on the Mac OS over all these years, and let us know if there’s anything else you need” and bails out more or less completely.
  3. Apple turns to Oracle, says “You’re a douche” and bails out completely.

Given the personalities of Jobs and Ellison, which do you see as the most likely scenario?

Looking at the limited resources (Mike Swingler, you are a champion, let that be said now!) that Apple threw at Java over the past decade, I can’t see them continuing to support a platform that they’ve already made very clear has a limited shelf life. They’re not going to stop you from installing a JRE on your machine, I don’t think, but they’re not going to help you in any way, either.

The real surprise hiding in all of this? This is exactly what happens on the Windows platform. Thousands upon thousands of Java developers have been building—and even sometimes deploying!—to Mr. Gates’ and Mr. Ballmer’s platform for years, and the lack of a pre-existing JRE has never stood in the way of that happening. In fact, it might actually be something of a boon—now we can get past the rather Byzantine Java Virtual Machine installation directory circus that Apple always inflicted on us. (Ever tried to figure out where the JVM lives on a Mac? Insanity! Particularly when compared to a *nix-based or even Windows-based JVM installation. Those at least make some sense.)

Yes, we’ll lose some of the nifty extensions that Apple developed to make it easier to interact with the desktop. Exactly like what happens on a Windows platform. Or any other platform, for that matter. Need to get at the dock? Dude—do what Windows and Linux guys have been doing for years—either build a shell script to do that platform-specific stuff first, or get to it through JNI (or, now, its much nicer cousin, JNA). Not a big deal.

Building an enterprise app? Dude…. you already know what I’m going to say.

Looking to Sun/Oracle

The bigger question will be what Oracle does vis-à-vis the Mac OS. If they decide to support the Mac by providing build infrastructure for building the OpenJDK on the Mac, wahoo! We win.

But don’t hold your breath.

Why? A poll, please, of the entire Internet:

  • Would all of those who use Java for desktop Mac applications, please raise your hands?
  • Now would all of those who use Mac OS X Server as an enterprise Java production server, please raise your hands?

Count the hands, people. That’s how many reasons Sun/Oracle can see, too. And those reasons have to come in high enough in order to be justifying the cost to go through the costs of adding the Mac OS to the OpenJDK build toolchain, figure out the right command-line switches to throw in the Mac gnu C/C++ compilers, figure out how best to JIT for the Intel platform while running underneath a Mac, accommodate all the C/C++ headers on the Mac platform that aren’t in the same place as their cousins on Windows or Linux, and so on.

I don’t see it happening. Donated source code or no, results of the Rick Ross-endorsed “Apple/OpenJDK petition” notwithstanding, I just don’t see Oracle finding it cost-effective to support the Mac in the OpenJDK.

Oh, and Mr. Gosling? Come out of your childish funk and smell the dollars here. The reason why HP and IBM all provide their own JDKs is pretty easy to spot—no one would use their platform if there weren’t a JVM for that platform. (Have you ever heard a Java guy go, “Ooh! Ooh! I get to run my code on an AS/400!"? Me neither. Hell, half the time, being asked to deploy to a Solaris box made the Java folks groan.) Apple clearly believes that the “shoe has moved to the other foot”—that they have a critical mass of users, and they don’t need to care about the Java community any more (if they ever did in the first place).

Only time will tell if Mr. Jobs was right.

Update Well, folks, it would be churlish of me to say "I told you so", but....

What I will say, though, is that the main message out of this is that apparently James Gosling has so little class that he insists on referring to the current owner of his platform as "Snorcle", a pretty clearly derogatory reference in the same vein as calling the .NET platform owner "Microsloth" or "M$". Mr. Gosling, the Java community deserves better than that. Try to put your childish peevishness aside and take the higher road. Seriously.


.NET | Android | Conferences | Flash | Industry | iPhone | Java/J2EE | Languages | LLVM | Mac OS | Objective-C | Social | Visual Basic | VMWare | Windows | XML Services

Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:16:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Comments [0]  | 
 Friday, October 22, 2010
Doing it Twice… On Different Platforms

Short version: Matthew Baxter-Reynolds has written an intriguing book, Multimobile Development, about writing the same application over and over again on different mobile platforms. On the one hand, I applaud the effort, and think this is a great resource for developers who want to get started on mobile development, particularly since this book means you won’t have to choose a platform first. On the other hand, there’s a few things about the book I didn’t like, such as the fact that it misses the third platform in the room (Windows Phone 7) and that it could go out of date fairly quickly. On the other hand, there were a lot of things I did like about the book, like the use of OData and the sample app “in the cloud”. On the other hand…. wait, I ran out of hands. A while ago, in fact. Regardless, the book is worth picking up.

Long version: One of the interesting things about being me is that publishers periodically send me books to review, on the hopes that I’ll find it interesting and blog about it, and you, faithful blog readers that you are, will be so overwhelmed by my implicit endorsement that you’ll immediately drop what you’re doing and run (don’t walk!) to the nearest bookstore or Web browser and engage in that capitalist activity known as “impulsive consumption”. Now, I don’t know if that latter part of the equation actually takes shape, but I do like to get books, so….

(What publishers don’t like about me is when they send me a book and I don’t write a review about it. Usually that’s because I didn’t like it, didn’t think it covered the material well, or my cat is sitting on the laptop keyboard and I’m too lazy to move him off of it. Or I’m just too busy to blog about it. Or any of dozens of other reasons that have nothing to do with the book. Sometimes I’m just too busy eating pie and don’t want to get crumbs on the keyboard. Mmmm, pie. Wait. Where was I? Ah, right. Sorry.)

As many of you who’ve seen me present over the last couple of years know, I’ve been getting steadily deeper and deeper into the mobile space, predominantly aimed at three platforms: iOS, Android and WindowsPhone 7. I own an iPhone 3GS that I use for day-to-day stuff, an iPhone 3G (recycled hand-me-down in the family when one of my family bought an iPhone 4) that I feel free to abuse since it’s not my “business line phone”, an iPod Touch that I feel free to abuse for the same reason, an iPad WiFi that I just bought a few weeks ago that I’ll eventually feel like I can abuse, a Motorola Droid that my friends refer to as my “skank phone” (it has a live phone # associated with it), a Palm Pre that I rarely touch anymore, and a few other devices even older than that laying around. And yes, I will be buying a Windows Phone 7 when it comes out here in the US, and I probably will replace my Droid with a Droid X or Samsung Galaxy before long, and get an Android tablet/slate/whatever when they start to come out (I’m guessing around Christmas).

Yeah, OK, so it’s probably an addiction by this point. I’m fine. I can stop whenever I want. Really.

All of that is by way of establishing that I’m very interested in writing software for the mobile device market, and I’ve got a few ideas (games, utilities, whatever) that I tinker with when I have the chance, and I always have this little voice in the back of my head whispering that “It’s such a pain that I have to write different client apps for each one of the mobile devices—wouldn’t it be cool if I could reuse code across the different platforms….?”

(Honesty compels me to say that’s totally not true—the little voice part, I mean. Well, no, I mean, I do hear voices, but they don’t say anything about reusing code. I write these little knick-knacks because I want to learn about writing code for all the different platforms. But I can imagine somebody asking me that question at a conference, so I pretend. And the voices? Well, they tell me lots of things, but I only listen to some of them and then only some of the time. Usually when the body is easily disposable.)

Baxter-Reynolds’ book, then, really caught my eye—if there’s a way to do development across these different platforms in any sort of capturable way, then hell, yes, I want to have a look.

Except…. That’s not really what this book is about. Well, sort of.

Put bluntly, Multimobile Development is about writing two client apps for a “cloud”-based service, “Six Bookmarks”. (It’s an app that lets you jump to a URL from one of the six buttons exposed in the app—in other words, a fixed-number of URL bookmarks. The point is not the usefulness of the service, it’s to have a relatively useful backplane against which to develop the mobile apps, and this one is “just right” in terms of complexity for mobile app clients.) He then writes the same client app twice, once on Android and then once for iPhone, quite literally as a duplicate of one another. The chapters even line up one-for-one with one another: Chapters 4 and 8 are about “Installing the Toolset”, the first for Android and the second for iOS, Chapters 5 and 9 are both “Building the Logon Form and Consuming REST Services”, Chatpers 6 and 10 are “An ORM Layer Over SQLite”, and so on. It’s not about trying to reuse code between the two clients, but he does do a great job of demonstrating how the server is written to support both (using, not surprisingly, OData as the “wire protocol” for data between the two), thus facilitating a small amount of effective reuse by doing so.

The prose is pretty clear, although he does, from time to time, resort to the use of exclamation points, which I find as a pet peeve in technical writing; to me, it just doesn’t read well, almost like the faked enthusiasm you see from a late-night product-pitch man. (“The Sham-Wow! It’s great! You’ll love it! Somebody, please stop me from yelling like this!”) But it’s rare enough that I can blow past it, and I generally write it off as just an aesthetic difference between me and the author. Beyond that, he does a good job of laying down clear explanations, objectives, and rationale.

A couple of concerns I have about this book, both of which can be corrected in a future edition, stand out as “must be mentioned”. First, this space is clearly a moving target, something Baxter-Reynolds highlights in the very first two pages of the book itself. He chooses to use the XCode 4 Developer Preview for the iOS code, which obviously is not the latest bits by the time you get your hands on the book—he admits as much in the prose, but relies on the idea that the production/shipping version of XCode 4 won’t be that different from the beta (which may or may not be a viable assumption to make).

The other concern is a bit more far-reaching: I kinda wish the book had Windows Phone 7 in here, too.

I mean, if he’s OK with using the developer preview of XCode for the iOS parts, it would seem reasonable to do the same for the WP7 Developer Tools, which have been out in a relatively stable form for quite a few months. Granted, he (probably) wouldn’t have been able to test his software on the actual device, since they appear to be rarer than software architects who still write code, but I don’t know that this would’ve changed his point whatsoever, either. Still, if he’s working on a second edition with WP7 as an additional client platform and another five or so chapters for comparison, it’d be a near-flawless keeper, at least for the next two or three years.

(Granted, he does do the .NET world a little justice by including a final chapter on MonoTouch, but that feels a little “thrown in” at the end, almost as if he felt the need to assuage the WP7 stuff by reminding the .NET developers: “Don’t worry, guys, someday, real soon now, you’ll be able to write mobile apps, too! And then clients will love you! And women will flock to you at cocktail parties! Somebody, please stop me from yelling like this!”.)

Overall, it’s a good book, and I like the fact that somebody’s taking on the obvious topic of “Multi-Mobile” development without falling into the “one source base, multiple platforms” trap. (I groan at the thought of how many developers are now going to go off and try to write cross-platform mobile frameworks, by the way. I don’t think it’ll be pretty.) It’s not a complete reference to all things iOS or Android—you probably want a good reference to go with each platform you write to—but as a “getting started with mobile development”, this is actually a great resource to have for both of the major platforms.


.NET | Android | C# | iPhone | Java/J2EE | Languages | Objective-C | Review | Visual Basic

Friday, October 22, 2010 9:39:36 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Comments [2]  | 
New to ASP.NET MVC? Test-Drive Your Way

Short version: Jonathan McCracken has produced a great guided tour of ASP.NET MVC 2, meaning if you’re trying to figure out what everybody’s getting so amped up about (as opposed to traditional page-oriented ASP.NET), then Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC is a great way to understand the excitement.

Long version:

I first met Jon when I was out in Bangalore, India, doing some consulting work for ThoughtWorks (my employer at the time). Jon was out in Bangalore working as an instructor for ThoughtWorks University, and we got to talking about the .NET community and specifically, how he could grow as a recognizable speaker and pontificator within that community. He’d had this idea, you see, for a book on ASP.NET MVC, and was thinking about pitching it to publishers. I suggested that he talk to the Pragmatic Bookshelf, and he agreed whole-heartedly—in fact, he was hoping to pitch it to them. We talked a bit about the process of writing a book, the pains involved and the total lack of fiscal incentive to do so, and despite all that, he still went ahead with the idea.

Time passed, as time has a way of doing, and I left ThoughtWorks. Jon and I kept in sporadic touch after that, but not much about writing or books. Until a few months ago, when a copy of Test-Drive ASP.NET MVC showed up at my door, and an email from Jon saying, “It’s done!” appeared in my Inbox shortly thereafter.

Bear in mind, I’m not much of a front-end guy anymore—quite frankly, all those questions about “Which Web framework should I use?” at Java conferences, combined with the fact that people keep trying to make Web applications into desktop applications when what they really wanted in the first place was a desktop app, just burned me out on All Things Web. So I’ve not spent a lot of time studying ASP.NET MVC, or anything else ASP.NET-related, for that matter. So, I figured, I’d sacrifice a weekend or so and slog my way through the book, for Jon’s sake. I mean, he helped me figure out what to order at the restaurant in Bangalore, so I figured I owed him at least that much.

Folks, to use the words first made famous by Neo, “Whoa. Now I know kung fu ASP.NET MVC.” And in about the same amount of time, too.

Jon’s writing style is quick, easy-to-read, and most importantly he’s not out to try and impress you with his vocabulary or mastery of the English language—he writes in the way most of us think, using single-syllable words and clear examples (and without reference to words like “catamorphism” or “orthogonal”). He’s not out to prove to the world that he’s a smart guy—he’s out to do exactly what the book claims to do: help you test drive the ASP.NET MVC framework, getting to feel how it approaches certain problems and exploring the ways it provides extensibility points.

One of the most striking things about ASP.NET MVC that comes across clearly in Jon’s book, in fact, is how easy it is to get up and running with it. I don’t mean “Look, Ma, I can code a demo with just a few mouse clicks!” kind of up to speed, but more of the “Look, folks, I can do a fair amount of pretty straightforward work in a pretty straightforward way after reading just a single chapter”, that chapter being (naturally) Chapter 1. In it, Jon walks the reader through a simple Web app (the “Quote-O-Matic”, for handing out witty and/or deep quotes to people who hit the home page), from installing the bits to seeing how requests route through the ASP.NET pipeline and into the MVC framework, and to your Controller and View from there. In fact, armed with just what you learn in Chapter 1, you could arguably do a fairly simple Web app in MVC without reading the rest of the book.

Of course, you’d miss out on a whole bunch if you did that, but you get my point.

Chapter 2 then gets into TDD (Test-Driven Development), and here I’m not quite so much a fan, if only because I’m not a TDD fanatic. Don’t get me wrong, Jon’s prose isn’t preachy, evangelical or in any way reminiscent of the “fire-and-brimstone” kind of tone that often accompany TDD discussions, despite Jim Newkirk’s chapter quote, which doesn’t exactly help convince the reader that this isn’t going to be one of those “Repent and come to TDD!” chapters. In truth, it’s not a “TDD” chapter, per se, but a chapter on how to unit test with MVC as a whole, which is important. (In fact, if you’re not unit-testing, why bother with MVC at all? A significant part of the point of MVC is the ease by which you can unit-test your code.) If you don’t unit-test your ASP.NET apps today, spend some time with the chapter and give it a fair shot before making a decision. Jon—and all of ThoughtWorks—believes strongly in unit-testing, and they churn out projects with an incredible on-time/under-budget/defect-free habit. Which is, I’m sure, part of the reason why this chapter appears here and not later in the book.

That’s the Fundamentals section. Seriously, those two chapters. That’s it.

Part II then gets in to deeper concepts around building the app: Chapter 3 discusses overall organization, Chapter 4 on Controllers, Chapter 5 on state and files, Chapter 6 on Views with HTML Helpers and Master Pages, and Chapter 7 on Views with AJAX and “Partials”. Part  III then talks about MVC integration with other frameworks, a la NHibernate.

Part IV is, in many ways, a coup de grace for the book, though, because Jon fearlessly tackles that bugaboo of Web development books: Web security (Chapter 11). So many books on the subject just skim over security or give it a pass with “My examples aren’t supposed to be real applications, so make sure you do the right security stuff before ship” and leave it at that. Not so for Jon—he go straight into error handling and logging and health monitoring. He then rounds out the section with Chapter 12, Build and Deployment, talking about what ThoughtWorks now refers to as “Continuous Deployment”, and how to use MSBuild to achieve this kind of automation. Nice.

Overall, I could wish the book was larger, because I think there’s so much more that could have been brought into the discussion, such as building a RESTful service using MVC, instead of a human-centric app, but the Prags like their books to be short and sweet, and this one is no exception (288 pages, including front and back matter, which means about 250 pages of “meat”). It’s not a reference you’re going to keep on your desk as you’re working through ASP.NET MVC, and the title reflects that: it’s a test drive through the MVC framework, with you as the passenger, watching over Jon’s shoulder as he puts this particular race car through the paces.




Friday, October 22, 2010 8:34:27 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Comments [0]  |