- Azul: http://www.azul.com/downloads/zulu/
- RedHat: https://developers.redhat.com/products/openjdk/overview/
- JetBrains: https://bintray.com/jetbrains/intellij-jdk
Because actually OpenJDK isn't 100% 1:1 to the closed source versions.
Which of those listed companies would try to keep OpenJDK alive and drive the JEPs?
RedHat is now supporting .NET, IBM made J9 modular for other languages like PHP, Ruby and Python, additionally improving Swift on GNU/Linux.
The question should rather be: Which of those listed companies will Oracle sue for doing so?
I actually doubt, that given the interest other companies have shown regarding saving Sun assets, anyone would bother to pick up OpenJDK afterwards.
Everything they touch is a catastrophe.
Oracle database? Bloated, absurdly expensive, and blown away by PostgreSQL. If you really want bulletproof reliability and absurd throughput then DB2 on a mainframe is a better choice.
Virtualbox? Bloated, slow, and much more buggy than VMware's offerings.
ERP software? Companies could save tons of money using a custom solution and even if you are so massive you need something like Oracle's ESP SAP's offering is infinitely better (and cheaper).
Java? Don't even get me started on Java...
It's not that Oracle ruins properties, the same could be said of Microsoft over the years, but that they tastelessly ruin them.
Bundling the Ask Toolbar with Java is absolutely insulting. Not even Adobe stoops that low.
Their strategy works.
They're not kind or well thought of in the dev community - have they ever been? They don't care.
They're interested in having enterprise decision makers on their side.
Also, would using OpenJDK remove any "Get your ass sued by Oracle" risk or just defer it to a later date?
Such a package with Scala might make major inroads into the enterprise over time, with virtually no risk. Clojure is also a widely respected JVM language.
You want a spokesperson for something they better be worthy of respect. That's their primary function. It's not being a sage of truth.
People listen to those they respect, and his behaviour at times is so out of line that he spends more time destroying his credibility than communicating.
I get that people might disagree with his views, but why would they think he's not worthy of respect?
You want people talking with the spokesperson be rather worthy of being treated respectfully by the spokesperson. People who put the medium (Stallman) above the message clearly aren't.
>Frequently Asked Questions
>Is Java still free?
>The current version of Java - Java SE 8 - is free and available for redistribution for general purpose computing. Java SE continues to be available under the Oracle Binary Code License (BCL) free of charge. JRE use for embedded devices and other computing environments may require a license fee from Oracle. Read more about embedded use of Java SE or contact your local Oracle sales representative to obtain a license.
Also, this link has more info on specific features that cost money, aside from the embedded vs general purpose issue:
Maven, love it or hate it, can do a staggering number of things, some of them very useful.
JAX-RS servers and clients are more robust IME on Java. (Just try to find a capable path+querystring builder for .NET.)
JDBC is still the gold standard for database connectivity.
I still have a repository where Surefire (hah) refuses to run any tests. Impossible to debug. No, that pile won't be missed.
For ASP.NET controllers, I'd use attribute routing's URL generation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/mvc/controllers...
If you want a separate library for use outside of ASP.NET, and you want something more sophisticated than UriBuilder, there are several out there. I've used Superscribe in the past, but I just looked around and Flurl looks pretty neat: http://tmenier.github.io/Flurl/
Haven't yet found the .NET equivalent to allow webtarget.path("foo").path("bar").query("hello", "yes") without making the user try to remember which URI query-part-escaping static method is appropriate.
Now that said, Flurl looks to have this pretty well covered, neat library!
The funny thing about that statement is that it's both true and insanely sad. JDBC is downright terrible but having a standard DB access layer has contributed a lot to Java's rise over the years.
I personally acknowledge that C# is a nicer language, but on Macs and Linux machines I have not had a great experience using it so far. I think if you try it today, you're basically an early adopter. If you're going to be an early adopter, the barn doors are wide open and I'm going to make serious consideration of Python, Haskell or Go.
Probably because Java runs without problems on (Windows) and (IX platforms without major problems).
If Oracle does not show a concerted effort to protect their copyright from all who are "infringing", does that help delegitimize their case against Google?
Pick the list of Fortune 500 companies and many smaller ones that work with them, take out the few SV darlings, and they will either be using .NET or Java for the majority of their software.
Specially those whose commercial domain isn't at all related to software development.
C and C++ are usually around as library languages supporting those applications, or older applications, many of them still written in frameworks like MFC and such.
Even if Oracle would kill Java, which might happen with this kind of behavior, it will take a few generations to change to something else, specially since many people are unaware of the amount of hardware running embedded JVMs.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup , Creator of C++
- It was kind of the Golang of the 90s, where each class had a clear and limited purpose -- but it also meant you had to chain three or five classes together to get anything useful done . For this and other reasons, like the longtime lack of type inference, earned it a reputation for verbosity.
- Most people don't have a clue how to design software, so they turned to outside resources for ideas. The 1994 book 'Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software'  introduced a lot of useful models on how to translate mental models into object-oriented code. Some systems sprawled too much to where their implementations started to look like this model gone horribly wrong, while some developers merely ingested these ideas as a dogma and went on to produce code that was needlessly complex and poorly thought-out.
- At some point a bunch of licensed code originating from a venture of IBM was dumped into the JDK, hence the awful, miserable mess that was datetime and calendaring  before Joda-Time's Stephen Colebourne brought sanity to it with Java 8.
- Consultancies are big business, and companies like IBM, Oracle, and SAP would happily sell shops on big application servers with monitoring and control panels and genuinely useful stuff, but also tons of cruft and bugs. These players emerged from the J2EE spec, which defined useful APIs but intentionally left the implementation unspecified, to cultivate a thriving community of alternative implementations. Predictably, this didn't go as hoped.
- People are obsessed with customizing their software, so vendor-delivered products were built with externalized configurations. Some people took this way too far, resulting in the familiar nightmare  where you had to configure mounds upon mounds of XML or .properties files to get an application running. It didn't help that this was actually the better way of getting it done in Java, with the Spring Framework, which was way more palatable to work with than the alternatives coming out of the J2EE spec.
- Rails shook the world at the end of 2005 and showed that the obsession with configuration was dumb . Scrambling, both Spring and EJB received rewrites, so now Java devs @hardcoded things directly into the source code with @annotations (that are by the way "not code!", as if that distinction was at all relevant) and pretended they were enlightened.
- Sun had a vision for Java that they were never truly able to execute. In the process, they delivered a pretty solid language, eventually backed by a fantastic VM , that became popular because it was simple and scaled down well to okay and decent programmers -- not requiring a fleet of expensive rockstars. Oracle smelled money and bought it up, and despite additional innovation still being delivered by its staff, created wariness and distrust in the Java community by its corporate attitude.
 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4716503/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns  https://java.net/nonav/projects/jsr-310/lists/dev/archive/20...  http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Soft_Coding  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12761705  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12160439
Because it is used in many CS curricula.
If you always want a job of some kind, for the next 30 years, it's safe to put it on your resume.
Or maybe you were being sarcastic?
It is an okay analogue to Java 1.4. But the state of the art is significantly further along, and OpenJDK+Kotlin (or Scala, if you're adventurous) is a significantly more well-considered alternative that fits much better into a Java workflow (not that those Java workflows are in danger in the first place, given that they don't use any version of Java that is outside the license).
Nice sci-fi scenario.
I'm assuming C#/.net carries the same risk, and C/C++ does not.
What specific risk(s) are you thinking about?
Disclaimer: Microsoft employee, Nazgûl
 Bunch of companies tried selling compilers with 'drink your milk shake' licensing terms in the 80's. Developer resistance, Microsoft and Borland killed them off.
C# and Java are significantly more forgiving and for most use cases are perfectly adequate. Performance is a reasonable concern, but not the primary driver of language choice.
If you look at the sort of Java code some people churn out in an enterprise environment you'd be glad they weren't using C++ which has significantly more sharp edges. Throwing random exceptions isn't as bad as periodically segfaulting for no apparent reason.
Brillo was supposed to have key Android frameworks made available in C++, as explained at set of Linux Embedded talks.
Instead what happened was they brought in the Android Java frameworks and renamed it to Android Things.