Metis

[Jared]

>> The whole virtual machine concept implies that you are not
>> to be trusted as a developer. You are expected to trust
>> the language vendor more than your own programming skills.

> This isn't the concept of the virtual machine. After all,
> it's really just a extremely CISC CPU intended to be
> emulated. It's not part of the language.

I understand this. I still resist the notion of any limitation
between a programming language and the machine, because it is a
dangerous trend to limit the developer from full, assembler-level
access to all hardware. Otherwise you incrementally stunt his
abilities, and that is sad. I am thinking about development fifty+
years in the future, when these issues are more mature, and from
that perspective, the Java approach is incrementally more and
more limiting to the developer.

>> Java has cross-platform merits, but clearly, it was designed by the
>> marketing department, not by the geek squad.

> Java has cross-platform merits not because of the virtual machine, 
> but because of its extensive standard library giving abstractions 
> for most of what people need to do. C and C++ can be generally 
> cross-platform, provided you only use the standard library, but 
> their stdlibs don't cover as much ground. Qt, on the other hand, 
> builds on C++ and replaces its standard library with one that is 
> more flexible and has a broader range of support, including the 
> QtGui module which provides for graphical interfaces.

Java does have cross-platform merits because of the virtual machine.
Your observations on libraries are keen, but are not the only
reason that Java has cross-platform merits. We're both right:

I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-platform.

     As previously noted, the Java platform is an exception
     to the general rule that an operating system is a software
     platform. The Java language provides a virtual machine,
     or a "virtual CPU" which runs all of the code that is
     written for the language. This enables the same executable
     binary to run on all systems which support the Java
     software, through the Java Virtual Machine. Java executables
     do not run directly on the operating system; that is,
     neither Windows nor Linux execute Java programs directly.
     Instead, a special computer program called the JVM, or
     Java Virtual Machine, is run by the operating system, which
     in turn runs the Java program.

Again, I'm fine with Java as a language, if only the virtual layer
could be removed.

>> If you can't crash a server, and crash it big with buggy
>> inline assembler, how are you ever going to learn grace
>> under pressure, which is a necessary component of any
>> responsible world domination plan? ;)

> You can't, or at least shouldn't be able to, crash a server
> with mere userland code. In most cases, you can't provided
> the server has been setup properly (eg, limiting forks to
> prevent forkbombs).

The logic behind "limiting forks" is a good idea for beginners.
But it is incrementalism in the wrong direction, not toward
freedom, and it removes useful tinkering ground from mature
developers. Do not think that all geeks will always have the
freedoms they take for granted today. Classlines are already
being drawn. Be wise. Stake a claim in the ruling class because
you understand the underlying issues.

Not far in the future, kernels will be considered "finished"
and stable, because hierarchical power structures will have
consolidated around them, and will prevent innovation, which
is a pattern easily measured by studying the social dynamics
of any large religion: Initial Freedom followed by incremental
imprisonment of its own followers, until they are killing each
other over absolutely trivial issues.

We must recognize we are building the foundations of a future
which will not always be as free as it is now -- unless we
look at these deeper issues and their long term consequences.

I prefer the geek to have full ability to crash the box --
and the wisdom and ethics not to do so; not a firewall of
technology preventing him, but a firewall of ethics. It's like
the logic behind the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

You seem to prefer removing power from the geek by limiting
him, rather than relying upon the reputation economy to inspire
geeks to do better, which is more perilous, but better in the
end.

The original rant remains standing: On a philosophical level,
virtual machine layers limit the geek. Some geeks like that.
This one prefers freedom.

-Jared