Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javascript environment”

http://cemerick.com/2010/12/12/oracle-vp-we-have-a-strategy-to-run-java-inside-a-javascript-environment/

by pepijndevos • 16 years ago

74 55 16 years ago

cemerick.com

jfb2• 16 years ago

It's turtles all the way down.

dstein• 16 years ago

Oh the amazing things I could write in JavaScript, inside Rhino, inside Java, inside JavaScript.

jfb2• 16 years ago

This was exactly my thought. Jesus wept.

endtime3• 16 years ago

Umm...are there any reasons, other than the JVM, to use Java? I'd much rather write plain old JS (or even better, CoffeeScript) than Java any day.

samstokes• 16 years ago

Vast quantities of existing code?

technomancy• 16 years ago

He said other than the JVM.

cemerick8• 16 years ago

If we're talking about a JVM impl (rather than a source-to-source compiler á la GWT), being able to use better languages like Clojure, Python (via Jython), Ruby (via JRuby), et al. would be a huge reason.

vhackish2• 16 years ago

Hmmm, I'd assumed it was a source-to-source compiler. Are they thinking of writing a JVM in JavaScript? Can you say slow? And debugging seems like a nightmare. And if it's not that, then how else does it get into the browser?

endtime3• 16 years ago

Fair enough. Though if you want to write code that looks like Python or Ruby, I can't recommend CoffeeScript (or Coco, if you're feeling frisky) enough.

Locke1689• 16 years ago

I don't know but this trend of making Javascript a compilation target is making me want to shoot myself (from a compiler-design perspective). JVM->Javascript seems like they're begging me to head over to Oracle and scream "Guys! You're going the WRONG WAY!"

cemerick8• 16 years ago

Javascript's absolutely ubiquitous distribution characteristics have resulted in all sorts of irrational behaviour.

If the W3C or the browser makers collectively had put some thought into making it possible for other languages to be linked into the client in a sane way (i.e. rather than the existing plugin regime), or defined some proper IL that app authors could compile to, Javascript wouldn't be on its way to being the compilation target for the web.

kls• 16 years ago

Right, I just don't see the point, are people so adverse to learning a new language that they need this. I mean it is logical that higher form languages are built on top of lower level ones. But this to me seems parallel. It is not like JavaScript is a low level run-time and in fact in some ways it is easier to pick up than Java for the uninitiated.

I assume that Oracle is doing this so that people can write Java in a browser. But I don't get it, Java's efforts at being a UI language have been disastrous, both web UI and desktop.

For the same reason it make a fairly decent middleware language is the same reason that it is a poor selection for the UI. It is ridged, it trades off flexibility for safety. Which is a good thing in the middleware layer, but when it comes to writing a UI, it seems that it always has it's feet in the wrong place.

Javascript despite it's warts is a very good UI development language. I was just thinking about this the other day, when I was working on a project, I use two toolkits in my day to day work Dojo and jQuery and I was just thinking about how totally different they are and how they deal with their problem sets very well.

Dojo allows me to build up reusable widgets that are self encapsulated that can just be dropped on a page and jQuery allows me to treat the DOM almost like SQL. They are very different in their approach but yet both are built from the same building block. You just don't see that kind of diversity in Java.

Again it is for a reason, and those reasons are good in the middleware and systems integration layer, but they are cumbersome in the UI. So it makes me wonder, why people are so adverse to learning a new language that is designed for it's problem domain.

sedachv4• 16 years ago

Don't shoot yourself. Think of it as a business opportunity that will pay lots of money to write compilers! That's pretty rare these days.

I'm working on a COBOL to JavaScript migration product already. $$$

vhackish2• 16 years ago

Yeah that just seems silly. But of course that's the Java way: add layers of abstraction wherever possible. Oh, and a big abstract IDE on top of it all would be really helpful ;-)

azakai3• 16 years ago

> Umm...are there any reasons, other than the JVM, to use Java? I'd much rather write plain old JS (or even better, CoffeeScript) than Java any day.

Existing code. I agree that writing JavaScript is better in almost all cases, but there is a lot of existing code out there and not just in Java but C, C++, and other languages. Being able to run that on the web, anywhere, would be huge.

rbanffy2• 16 years ago

In my book, Java is the best reason not to use a JVM. It's things like Jython and Clojure that save it.

endtime3• 16 years ago

I agree; I implied that the JVM is a reason to use Java, not that Java is a reason to use the JVM.

wmf• 16 years ago

For Oracle's sake, let's hope Google doesn't have patents on GWT.

bad_user2• 16 years ago

Like a patent on compilers that converts from language A to language B?

No, Oracle has that already.

juiceandjuice• 16 years ago

Java -> Javascript -> (v8) -> assembly = JVM

raganwald2• 16 years ago

"We have a strategy to promise that everything and anything provided that there is no firm specification or explanation and provided that we provide no date for implementation.

"This gives our customers a sense of security that if anything should happen to become important in the future, they will have purchased from a vendor that has a vision for embracing the technology even if there is no roadmap for actually implementing the technology.

"And although they may not ever end up benefitting from the technology, their careers are safe because they made a decision that, at the time, was prudent, namely to standardize on a technology that was thought to be on its way to becoming ubiquitous from a vendor that articulated a strategy for achieving ubiquity."

tl;dr: "F.U.D."

cemerick8• 16 years ago

Where is that from? That's not in my post, and not in the podcast transcript…

raganwald2• 16 years ago

Oh? Gosh, I must have misread it. I admit I was in a hurry, and what he said sounded so much like what other proprietary enterprise vendors say when promising vaporware that I got the exact wording confused.

UPDATE: Look, I am NOT making fun of your post in any way. I think it's fair game to poke a little at his comments given that there has been no other mention of this, no roadmap, nothing. But I respect your post and the fact that you pushed a little further and tried to find some corroboration for his statement.

I'd like to think that somewhere in Oracle-land, there's a white paper from the Sun days talking about this idea, and maybe they're even trying to make it fly right now. And good job teasing that out and asking some intelligent questions about what it may mean.

martincmartin• 16 years ago

He's being sarcastic. He's paraphrasing.

earl• 16 years ago

I am aware of all internet traditions

bad_user2• 16 years ago

Creating something like a VM or a compiler that produces reliable and fast-enough Javascript from bytecode is hard work, and there is no evidence that it can be done. Microsoft tried something similar with Volta (project discontinued) and when I tried it the results where awful, although it was cool that you could compile CLR bytecode to Javascript: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Live_Labs_Volta

On the other hand creating something less than Java SE would break compatibility and it would not be covered by the patents grant, not to mention difficulties in calling the thing "Java".

Oh wait ...

zmmmmm2• 16 years ago

I started out writing about how I thought this was insane and by the end of it I had changed my mind and - suspending disbelief and assuming they can pull this off in a reasonable and performant manner - it's actually a pretty clever idea.

Now that Apple, Google and Microsoft have all put the nail in the coffin of applets by not supporting them on their mobile devices Java is looking decidedly shaky as a client side browser technology - especially when you consider that Flash IS shipping to most devices. However Oracle can actually one-up Flash here if they can promise to run inside the browser on any platform. Not too long ago it would have been impossible, but with things like Canvas, WebWorkers and WebSockets they can probably make a reasonable stab at implementing at least the functions of a standard Applet with Javascript.

duskwuff• 16 years ago

Java as an applet host has been effectively dead for years. I would be very surprised if Oracle were trying to resurrect that. Seems more likely that they'd be trying to replace the server JRE with a server-side JS interpreter.

mambodog• 16 years ago

Java as an applet host has been effectively dead for years.

Blackboard still uses it :(

zmmmmm2• 16 years ago

Seems more likely that they'd be trying to replace the server JRE with a server-side JS interpreter

Unless you're suggesting they are being willfully misleading I'm not sure how you could interpret that from what they said:

...we think it’s something that we need to do for the community so we can make Java available more places from tablet devices like the iPad ...

I think Java applets are a lot less dead than people realize. There are heaps of enterprises that have deployed them for internal apps (essentially a slightly less evil version of ActiveX). I could easily imagine a lot of these places now have executives wandering around with iPads complaining that the payroll app doesn't work on their computer any more.

Shorel• 16 years ago

Or, they can stop having fear of the NIH syndrome and embrace Google Android.

Nah, that will never happen.

ShabbyDoo• 16 years ago

GWT achieves reasonable speed by only supporting a subset of Java which is already basically compatible with the JavaScript runtime. So, you don't get things like threads, weak references, etc. To support such things (if it's even possible) would require writing (at least pieces of) a JVM in JavaScript. Want weak references? You now can not use JS GC -- you have to synthesize Java objects and write your own GC impl. Good luck getting that to perform.

mrleinad2• 16 years ago

SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE JAVA, SO WE PUT JAVA IN YO JAVA SO YOU CAN EXECUTE JAVA WHILE YOU EXECUTE JAVA

hugh3• 16 years ago

I'm glad someone else already posted this so I didn't have to sacrifice my own karma by doing it myself.

mrleinad2• 16 years ago

Damn...

rbanffy2• 16 years ago

There is a certain amount of cluelessness that, when concentrated inside a given company, risks starting a runaway chain reaction that ends up destroying the company and the ecosystem around it.

jcw• 16 years ago

No no no no no no no.

Oracle VP: “We have a strategy to run Java inside a Javascript environment”

Related Stories