From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,dc94fe39f71093ec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Geoff Bull Subject: Re: The revolution will not be standardized Date: 1999/12/15 Message-ID: <385779CB.12991F19@acenet.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 560926571 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <82p7hu$l1q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82ppc9$1u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <385252E8.FF140CD2@acenet.com.au> <8333q3$9rh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8335ip$b8f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au> <835mbb$5jd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@telstra.net X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 945256904 203.35.118.1 (Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:21:44 EST) Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:21:44 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-12-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au>, > > There is a language specification for the core language. > > But if Sun decides tomorrow that Java now looks just like Python, who's > to stop them? A few million unhappy customers. > If someone makes a completely non-conformant JVM, and pays Sun a ton of > money, what's to stop Sun from declaring it a valid JVM? That would seem like a pretty dumb thing to do in the long term, particularly considering the Sun v Microsoft cases. > If someone makes a perfectly conformant Java but Sun doesn't like them > for some other reason, what's to stop Sun from refusing to declare it a > valid Java implementation? I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of a few legal angles on this one. To start with, in Australia, that would be a breach of our Trade Practices Act. And I am under the impression that US laws are tougher than ours in this regard. > > The libraries are extensively documented, so that can be considered > > a standard. And of course, the JVM has a standard. > > Being documented does not make something a standard. By that logic, > every commercial API in the world would be a "standard". True - but if something has a few million users it is a defacto standard. > > "When is a standard *not* a standard?". When nobody uses it.