|
|
|
|
|
by pjmlp
2457 days ago
|
|
Commercial JDKs do pay off, so much that many of the commercial AOT compilers (since around 2000) are still in business, although with the ongoing support on OpenJDK that might change a bit (ExcelsiorJET just gave up). JIT and GC algorithms to the level done by JVM implementations don't come up with all nighters and weekend programming scratching an itch, and those software engineers need to be payed accordingly. So if others have a problem with Oracle, maybe they could compensate for the fact that Oracle employees still do 90% of Java development and OpenJDK related work. |
|
I have absolutely nothing against some kind of commercial model for funding the JDK. My comments were that in my opinion, the model is unfortunately doomed:
- Lack of goodwill for Oracle - Enterprises who are not yet Oracle customers really really want to stay away from entering into a commercial agreement. True or not, the perception is that a license agreement with Oracle comes with aggressive and intrusive compliance audits.
- Worse is better syndrome - Indeed Oracle is the primary developer on the JDK, but the others entering this space are not hobbyists working on the side. Plenty of serious vendors with serious compiler chops have skin in keeping "free JRE" as the "fast enough" JRE. Redhat natch IBM, Google, Azul, Amazon, apparently Twitter (see pull request). Graal EE is supposedly 30-40% faster on some numeric workloads. But what if these players get that down to 20% or 10% .. or suddenly there might be workloads where CE is faster. Much harder to pitch that license agreement without compelling and unambiguous benefit.
I don't have a "problem" with Oracle, I'm just commenting on where I think the industry is right now. Maybe Oracle will prove me wrong - Microsoft sure did.