Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)

[Ken Garlington <kennieg@flash.net>]

Bertrand Meyer wrote:
> 
> It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion
> if one's arguments are distorted and misquoted.
> 
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> > Another note regarding the Meyer attack on Java:
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Meyer attack on Java".
> Read my postings and articles and you will see that
> if they "attack" something it is the idea that Java
> is the language to replace all languages. That's
> rather different.

I stand corrected. I should have said: "Another note
regarding the Meyer 'attack' on Java being the language
to replace all other languages..."

This "attack" was predicated (in part) on the following
points, which I challenged:

1. That there was not enough evidence that Java could
scale to large projects. I questioned whether this
was really a fundamental obstacle, since there are
also concerns about the scalability of Eiffel. Furthermore,
your own statements about the lack of language use not
being a sufficient argument for rejecting it (e.g.
Eiffel for real-time safety-critical avionics) seems
to shed doubt on the value of your contention.

2. That using the Ariane 5 example to "prove" that Java
was flawed due to a lack of built-in assertions was,
itself, flawed. This is discussed in more detail in
http://www.flash.net/~kennieg/ariane.html.

I assume there is no response to these rebuttals?

> 
> > The portability of Java is questioned [in an article
> > at http://www.eiffel.com/general/news] primarily by reference
> > to a trade article where Microsoft has "declared war" on Sun
> > over Java -- the implication being that Java will not be available
> > on Microsoft OSs (e.g. Windows).
> 
> There is no such implication, which would be foolish.
> Microsoft has said they would not support the Java Foundation
> Class libraries. This does not mean they are not making
> Java itself available; but it does break the myth of total and
> automatic Java portability.

Again, you are correct: I should have said "the implication being
that Java Foundation Class libraries will not be available on
Microsoft OSs (e.g. Windows)."

Today's paper had more information about Microsoft and Java
(in the context of the Apple deal):

"Sun, along with IBM, Oracle, and other industry players, has
been promoting Java as a new operating system that would
succeed Microsoft's Windows as the future industry standard
as more computing power is expected to occur over networks,
instead of the PC desktop.

"Not surprisingly, Microsoft has been resisting those efforts.
It has embraced Java as a programming language that software
companies can use to write programs that run on Microsoft's
Windows PC operating system software."

So, with respect to Java as a portable OS, I believe you are
correct. However, with respect to Java as a programming
language, it's unclear to me whether there will be a single
internationally accepted standard or not. Are all
Eiffel implementations from all vendors standardized? How is this
determined?

The article goes on to discuss Microsoft and Apple collaborating
on Java implementations. I note that the Eiffel comments on this
article mentions that Eiffel is available on "Windows NT, Windows 95,
Unix (a dozen different platforms), Linux and VMS...." Is an Apple
implementation in the works?

> 
> There is enough room for controversy in what people actually
> write not to create artificial disputes about what someone
> else believe they think. This is just a waste of everyone's
> time.

I apologize if my overly-simplified summary misled anyone.

> --
> Bertrand Meyer, President, ISE Inc., Santa Barbara (California)
> 805-685-1006, fax 805-685-6869, <Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com>
> Web: http://www.eiffel.com, with instructions for free download
> == ISE Eiffel 4: Eiffel straight from those who invented it ==