[clug] Why isn't Java popular on the Linux Desktop?

[Hugh Fisher]

Daniel Pittman wrote:
> I assume you are restricting your comment to "portability without effort",
> because there is plenty of evidence that portable software is possible. ;)

There's a book "The Practice of Programming" by B Kernighan and R Pike
in which they point out that "portable" is not a boolean. There are
always tradeoffs as to how portable you want your software to be. The
Linux kernel obviously has a high value, but even so, could it be
made to run on the Apple II? (And would it still be recognisable as
Linux if you did so?)

At the other end, the IBM Deep Blue chess program must be the least
portable piece of sofware written for many decades, with (IIRC)
exactly one possible computer to run on. But so what? It did the
job it was designed for.

My objection to Java has always been that the designers insisted on
a very high level of "portability" without recognising that other
people might have different criteria. I write my graphics stuff in
C++ not because I like that language but because it works with all
the wierd graphics/input device libraries that I want to use. It's
not without effort, but in my judgement much less effort than it
would be to use Java.

	cheers,
	Hugh