IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: History revisionism - beware !!! (IMHO)
dmarker: The true issue over why Java (Strong typing) became popular over weakly typed languages was that it was the *only* way security would work for connected code over the Internet as it was 3-5 years ago. [...]

I'm not sure that is entirely correct. Glenn Vandenburg writes (see link below) that at the time of Java's introduction, there were several competing "safe code" models for mobile code. All used very different security models and only one (Java) was strongly typed.

[link|http://www.vanderburg.org/cgi-bin/glv/blosxom/2003/05/17#Software/Languages/static_vs_dynamic|http://www.vanderbur...static_vs_dynamic]

Unfortunately Glenn gives very little details about any of them.
--
-- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich|http://w3.one.net/~jweirich]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
New Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang

>>
When Java first hit the streets, mobile code was a hot topic. General Magic was promoting their Magic Cap environment, featuring mobile code ("agents") heavily, and powered by a language called Telescript. Nathaniel Borenstein was researching "active mail", sending active invitations and the like via email using a dialect of Tcl called Safe-Tcl. Someone (I can't remember who at the moment) was developing roughly equivalent functionality in Perl (the Safe.pm module). Luca Cardelli at DEC was developing a beautiful and novel little language called Obliq.

All of those languages supported secure mobile code, and all of them used very different security models. My memory of Telescript is fuzzy, but I know for a fact that Java is the only one of the rest that is statically typed. And I remember from my evaluation at the time that Java and Telescript had the two most complex security models (and complexity is not a good thing in a security model).
<<

The above extract from the link points out some other work that was being done but one also needs to take into account the political dynamics of the day ...

- MS was creaming the market & competition with its classic tactics

- IBM decided to get behind Sun's Java (Oak) as a counterbalance to MS propaganda about DCOM (and DCOM & Active-X's inherent weakness for net use)

- Smalltalk was there but had completely failed to garner popular support. This went beyond the effort of the various ST tool vendors

- Java won because it was so familiar to the multitudes of C & C++ programmers. Java was very shallow when it 1st came out (effectively in ver 1.0.3). Over 5 years, Sun IBM HP & others developed the bulk of what is J2SE & J2EE today. That Java has many flaws didn't stop it carving out an empire that tipped MS temporarily on its ear. MS had to go back to the drawing board & invent .NET & C#

- The other languages that were or were about to enter the scene had no substantial backers that would enable them to do any better than Smalltalk in garnering market share, some appear to have been still borns.

What ST vs Java taught me was that elegance (ST) does not dictate victory. Also I believe there is much confusion (due to time passing) over the issue of Java's strong typing. It was the strong typing and thus tiny code packets that enabled Java's applet concept to work well over WANS & appear secure (just a pity that MS succeeded in poisoning Applets with their 'dirty' Java VM back in MSIE 2 & 3.

Cheers

Doug Marker


New Re: Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang
dmarker: The true issue over why Java (Strong typing) became popular over weakly typed languages was that it was the *only* way security would work for connected code over the Internet as it was 3-5 years ago.

dmarker: Java won because it was so familiar to the multitudes of C & C++ programmers. [...] The other languages [...] had no substantial backers

I wouldn't disagree with your second statement. Java was definitely a strongly marketed language[1]. And I wouldn't disagree that the perception that strong typing is necessary for secure mobile code had some (small) effect. However, I'm not sure that the first statement is accurate as stated, especially with the emphasis on the word "only".

Footnotes:
[1] I recently flipped through a first generation Java book on my bookshelf. I had forgotten how much of the book was just propaganda (and inaccurate at that!) without much technical content.
--
-- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link|http://onestepback.org|http://onestepback.org]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
     The awakening begins - (tuberculosis) - (140)
         Quotes from Uncle Bob - (admin) - (12)
             Maybe it's just me... - (Simon_Jester) - (5)
                 Static languages make the code brittle ... - (bluke)
                 History revisionism - beware !!! (IMHO) - (dmarker) - (3)
                     Re: History revisionism - beware !!! (IMHO) - (JimWeirich) - (2)
                         Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang - (dmarker) - (1)
                             Re: Another issue was the potential popularity of a lang - (JimWeirich)
             Gee...I thought it was a friendly discussion... - (jb4) - (4)
                 Re: Gee...I thought it was a friendly discussion... - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                     Manifest typing....a la Fortran. - (Simon_Jester)
                     Thanks, Jim. Nicely put. -NT - (jb4) - (1)
                         Re: Ditto - Thanks, Jim. -NT - (dmarker)
             Next experiment: try it without OO -NT - (tablizer)
         Java going in the other direction - (bluke) - (109)
             Re: Java going in the other direction - (JimWeirich) - (34)
                 Smalltalk also - (bluke)
                 Speaking of autoboxing - (ChrisR) - (32)
                     gasp -NT - (deSitter) - (2)
                         This is what happens when the foundation sucks - (bluke) - (1)
                             Oh My! - (deSitter)
                     According to Joshua Bloch it hasn't been decided yet - (bluke) - (28)
                         This is just stupid - (tuberculosis) - (27)
                             I think you missed the point - (JimWeirich) - (5)
                                 OK, maybe so - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                     Re: OK, maybe so - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                                         Well in this case - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                             Perhaps ... but ... - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                                 My point was - (tuberculosis)
                             Not J-heads. - (admin) - (1)
                                 Smalltalk as usual is consistent - (bluke)
                             Set Theory - (deSitter) - (18)
                                 Re: Set Theory - (admin) - (12)
                                     Here we go - (deSitter) - (11)
                                         Re: Here we go - (admin) - (10)
                                             Amazing - (deSitter) - (9)
                                                 Re: Amazing - (admin) - (6)
                                                     Re: Amazing - (deSitter) - (5)
                                                         Wow. My first exposure to APL - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                             Same as in Objective C -NT - (admin)
                                                         Re: Amazing - (JimWeirich) - (2)
                                                             Heh. - (tseliot) - (1)
                                                                 ROFL -NT - (deSitter)
                                                 No - (Arkadiy)
                                                 Hey Ross, it's only a model. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Hey, watch this! - (drewk)
                                 Unlike DrooK, I'll bite: Ever heard of SQL, ya nitwit?!? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                     See comment above, applies here as well - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Better stop talking to yourself then. - (admin)
                                         Your problem is the same you had a year (or was it two?) ago - (CRConrad)
             I remeber Pascal in the very same way - (jb4) - (72)
                 Just had this conversation - (tseliot) - (45)
                     Freep said the same thing - (tuberculosis) - (43)
                         Still waiting for ... - (jb4) - (42)
                             Depends on constraints - (tuberculosis) - (41)
                                 Platforms: - (jb4) - (40)
                                     Don't even get me started - (tuberculosis) - (30)
                                         I'll get you started, alright! - (jb4) - (29)
                                             No I'm not - (tuberculosis) - (28)
                                                 The problem is, you're trying to treat a bool as a number - (jb4) - (25)
                                                     No, I'm trying to branch on a condition - (tuberculosis) - (24)
                                                         21st Century Schitzoid Man - (jb4) - (23)
                                                             You are fighting the language - (tuberculosis) - (22)
                                                                 Tell you what... - (jb4)
                                                                 Can I put my oar in? - (static) - (20)
                                                                     Yeah sure - (tuberculosis) - (19)
                                                                         Such flowerly language toward such a misguided conclusion - (jb4) - (18)
                                                                             Yeah right - (tuberculosis) - (17)
                                                                                 (++true == false) - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                                                     Just add a little gasoline, and stir!_____;-) - (jb4)
                                                                                 OK, Now I see wht your problem is - (jb4) - (5)
                                                                                     I thought you were going to give up on this - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                                                                         How sensible is this?!? - (jb4) - (3)
                                                                                             Not convinced - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                                                                                 Nor am I - (jb4) - (1)
                                                                                                     You guys should be using Modula-2. :-P (new thread) - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 And an answer to your question. - (jb4) - (8)
                                                                                     Wrong answer - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                                                                         Wrong answer back - (jb4)
                                                                                         They've turned it into Pascal - (deSitter) - (5)
                                                                                             Circular definition. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                                                 Re: Circular definition. - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                                                     Self-contradiction, and logically inconsistent definition. - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                                                                         Can someone start a new thread please? -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                             What for, aren't the long ones the best? -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                 Comments on supposed idiocy - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                                     Re: Comments on supposed idiocy - (tuberculosis)
                                     Don't even get me started - (tuberculosis)
                                     You didn't mention types of programs -NT - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                         Sorry, thot I was clear earlier... - (jb4) - (6)
                                             Still doesn't tell me enough - (tuberculosis) - (5)
                                                 Re: Still doesn't tell me enough - (jb4) - (4)
                                                     The VM's are all written in very portable C - (tuberculosis) - (3)
                                                         Re: The VM's are all written in very portable C - (deSitter) - (2)
                                                             Funny you should mention it - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                                                                 Re: Funny you should mention it - (deSitter)
                     Minor modification - (jb4)
                 Just because *you* don't see it... - (pwhysall)
                 In fact.. - (deSitter) - (15)
                     Heh... - (jb4) - (14)
                         Re: Heh... - (deSitter) - (13)
                             BS - (admin) - (3)
                                 BS - (deSitter) - (2)
                                     When I see you spouting it, I'm going to call you on it. - (admin) - (1)
                                         Fair enough! -NT - (deSitter)
                             Do you have a clue why Linux is easily ported? - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                                 Re: Do you have a clue why Linux is easily ported? - (deSitter) - (7)
                                     No, that is not quite what you claimed - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                         Well, to me -NT - (deSitter)
                                         Well, to me "moot" means.. - (deSitter) - (4)
                                             Why does your position appear to be shifting? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                 Modus operandi - (admin) - (1)
                                                     Re: Modus operandi - (deSitter)
                                                 Re: Why does your position appear to be shifting? - (deSitter)
                 Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (drewk) - (8)
                     Yes - (bluke)
                     Re: Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (JimWeirich) - (6)
                         Re: Wasn't Pascal written as a teaching tool? - (Yendor) - (4)
                             Forward Declarations - (JimWeirich) - (3)
                                 Hmm, was Turbo Pascal different about that? -NT - (drewk)
                                 Been too long - (Yendor)
                                 Nope, you're right. - (jb4)
                         Not when I learned it - (drewk)
             Same bandaid as C++ templates - (tuberculosis)
         Re: The awakening begins - (systems) - (16)
             A couple answers - (tuberculosis) - (12)
                 ICLRPD - (drewk)
                 Do I C another one...? - (CRConrad) - (10)
                     Aren't they like seals? - (tuberculosis) - (9)
                         Yes they are. - (admin)
                         No - they're "almost, but not entirely, unlike" seals. - (CRConrad) - (7)
                             NFC. -NT - (admin) - (1)
                                 Does the phrase "Splitting Hairs" come to mind. :-) -NT - (ChrisR)
                             birds are feathered and hairy - (boxley) - (4)
                                 It's all feathers. - (admin) - (3)
                                     Re: It's all feathers. - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Re, "PS": Yeah, sure - so, whatchathink HAIRS are?!? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Never really thought about it.. - (deSitter)
             Sometimes there aren't right answers - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                 Down with Determinants! :) -NT - (deSitter)
             Please indicate what you changed in an Edit. Thanks. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)

Is this how you were? Because I said, "As you were," and I don't think this is how you were.
263 ms