Re: Oracle and Java. Does Oracle know something some of us don't?

"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com> writes:

> See answers embedded
> Jim
> "Simon Lenn" <simonlenn_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3641e2c2.0301062219.6b78acd5_at_posting.google.com...
> > "dmz17" <dmz17_at_nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.01.06.18.21.42.720822_at_nospam.nowhere.com>...
> > > On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:21:30 +0000, Karsten Farrell wrote:
> > >
> > > <grin>
> > > .. and a gazillion check marks amount to approx. 1 CD.
> > > </grin>
> > >
> > > dmz17
> >
> > I hate to go back to the basics again. I categorically indicated
> > that oracle was strategically moving and touting Java as the lingua
> > franca. But everybody must remember why Oracle embraced Java
> > in the first place was not C/C++ a cross platform open language why
>
> No. You can't easily port C++ from one OS to another. Try writing
> something on MS Windoze and then
> porting it to Solaris on a Spark station. Certainly not as simple as Java
> would be. Not saying C++ is a bad language, but it is not easily cross
> platform.

My first programming language was C and although I don't work in it much (except on private projects), its still my favorite language. C++ on the other hand has to be one of the worst OO languages I have ever used. Working with it feels exactly like what it is, an after-thought and attempt to tack on OO features to an existing language. While I don't deny it is very powerful, it is very dangerous and allows inexperienced or unskilled OO programmers to create some very nasty code. In fact, one of the objectives of Java was to provide an OO language which avoided many of the mistakes and dangers of C++.

You will never see a cross platform C++ compiler. Apart from the political issues mentioned by Jim, there is the issue that C and C++ are very closely tied to the OS - data types are dependent on the architecture of the underlying system - an int on one architecture is different to that on another, file I/O is different and even low level library calls and system calls like random() work differently. It is because of these differences that Java uses a virtual machine - to provide a standardized layer which is the same on all architectures.  

> > did not Oracle initiate efforts to enlarge and standardize C++ despite
> > knowing the fact every major operating system to oracle database
> > kernel even today is written in C++ and embrace C++. Despite Java's
> > wide popularity and free JDK even today C/C++ is the most
> > widely used language to develop real serious mission critical
> > applications.

I know of very few OS which are written in C++. I think you will find the vast majority are written in C.

> To try to come up with your own version of C++ that was cross platform
> independent would be a huge task and still keep the C++ users happy. Ouch.
> Too many language lawyers with the pointers and defreferencing etc. Never
> make it out of committee.
>
> > It as stood the test of time. But nobody bothered to make C++ as VB or
> > Delphi.The reason why Oracle supported Java was because of the cosy
> > relationship
> > Oracle had with Sun at that time. Since, Sun was in bed with Oracle
> > they supported and embraced Java I would say somebody is a fool if he
> > says Java
> > is better than C++.

There is no single language which is good for every job. Personally, if I had to choose an OO language to work in, I'd certainly prefer Java over C++. If portability was an issue, then I would NEVER choose C++.

>
> They are different. There are things I can do in Java and get it running on
> more platforms (time to market, not performance of the application) that I
> or probably anyone could in C++. Again that is not to say C++ is not
> powerful; it is. It is a great language. It isn't one I would start a new
> programmer on.
>
> C++ is even today the best and most powerful
> > language it only needs proper committments from vendors to make it
> > as easy to use as Visual Basic or Delphi or PowerBuilder. I would take
> > a bet if Apple wants to make C++ the language of choice I can bet they
> > will develop
> > a killer language on top of C++ why can't Oracle do it.
> >
>
> Again, it isn't a technical reason it is a political one. The professionals
> that use C++ are used to using it on their platform and would probably not
> want to change the quirks they deal with today to have a true cross platform
> C++. C++ is too mature to attempt to basterdise it. The battle of a
> building a true cross platform C++ is too uphill.
>
> > This is the best part why Oracle did it read further, the relationship
> > between Oracle and Sun is sour if I can say why did Scott McNeilly
> > decide not to show up at Oracle Open World very simple Oracle embraced
> > Linux. Linux before even it bites Windows it will sweep clean all
> > versions of UNIXes the first would be Solaris. If Solaris goes and
> > if Intel Itanium and P4 based Linux servers can do the same job as
> > the beastly Sun, HP 7 IBM UNIX servers at 1/10 th the price in Linux
> > servers from Dell only brainless morons would be buying UNIX boxes.
>

Linux is certainly my favorite OS and I've been working on a Linux platform since 1994. However, Linux still has a way to go before it can match some of the commercial unix OS out there in many areas. Take a look at the way True64 handles volumes and disk management - its quite nice and way ahead of Linux which is only recently beginning to acquire some of the advanced features of such systems. I think Linux will give many of the commercial unix OS a run for their money in time, but its not quite there yet. It can certainly do the job in small to medium environments, but some of the weaknesses become evident once you begin to deal with large systems.

> Possibly. Oracle wants to sell Oracle and consulting services and Oracle
> Applications etc. That's their business and if the buying public wants it
> on Linux by golly they will make it available on Linux. I think Oracle
> wants to keeps its options open. That is a smart thing to do.
>
> > Like it or not
> > this is where Oracle is screaming and taking the crowd in its Real
> > application cluster-RAC. Oracle will lead the industry to decimate
> > UNIX servers and create a upsurge in LINUX deployment. This is all
> > bad news for Sun. Hey look at Sun's (The Java Company) stock price
> > is around $3. Now there is open talk that a decimated Sun will be
> > acquired by IBM. Remember the arch nemesis of Oracle is not Microsoft
> > it is IBM, Larry dreads IBM even in is dreams and if IBM starts
> > controlling Java guess what Larry would do he will press the deinstall
> > button on Java. This is to put more gracefully called vendor politics.
> > Why would Larry support IBM ?

If Larry can make cash even if it support IBM in the process he will do it - the bottom line is profit and no matter how much he might dislike a company, if he can make money even wehn using one of its products, he will use it.

> He has pl/sql and now that you can compile it to native C code its looking
> faster than ever.
>
> >
> > I have worked on other legacy systems like SAP R/3. SAP is all
> > proprietary
> > written in ABAP which Larry has rebuked time and again and even called
> > SAP a dinosaur now SAP have extended ABAP to be object oriented it is
> > all ugly it is nowhere comparable to PL/SQL but that is what they are
> > extending. Java came and now it is going SAP have not budged they have
> > stuck with the shocking proprietary language ABAP. I am amused that
> > Oracle with such a powerful language like PL/SQL does not want to make
> > it OO and develop it. Hey even Perl is Object oriented now.
> >

Perl is NOT object oriented. It has support for OO type features, but there is no way you can say it is object oriented - even when you use the OO features of Perl, you are not forced to use them in a OO way - in fact, it is clearly documented in the perl documentation that the OO features are not enforced in any way and it is totally up to the programmer to use them in a consistent OO type manner. Even when you define a class and create an object instance of it, you can access its methods and variables in a non-OO manner.

> Of course. SAP is a competitor. Larry isn't going to be all lovey dovey to
> SAP. Probably not making pl/sql OO because it is too much of a paridigm
> shift. About 10 years abo I worked with a bunch of people in an OO language
> and none of us were OOPL programmers. It was amazing. It made the good
> programmers better and the bad programmers worse. The ones that didn't get
> it just wrote lousy code. (side effects all over the place)
>
> >
> > As somebody aptly said embracing Java would make Oracle smell like
> > roses.
> > BTW the next release of Microsoft SQL Server that is being released -
> > Yukon in Mar 2003. SQL Server apparently can run stored procedures
> > written in C, C++, Visual Basic, ASP, Visual J++ (MS Java) and all
> > .Net languages including Perl & XMLScript in the SQL server engine MS
> > is building a CLR runtime environment into SQL Server - imagine all
> > those millions of lines of VB code that can be straight moved into the
> > database that too as compiled code.
>
> Not really. You have to translate it from vb6 to vb .net and they are
> different. There are a bunch of things you can't do in this .net "language
> neutral" world (eg closures) that you can do natively in things like
> SmallTalk. So what you get is a subset of the language that is really a
> method of having syntax that translates into C.
>

Exactly. The MS marketing department likes to push the fact .net can support many languages including perl etc. However, they neglect to point out that you will only have access to a sub-set of the facilities of the language.

> The development tool for SQL
> > Server will be the touted Visual Studio and language not T-SQL but
> > C++, C#, VB & ASP will not Oracle have a serious Guess what will
> > Oracle and DB2 respond
> > then !!. If Oracle was serious of server side programming options it
> > must have
> > supported C/C++, Java, Pl/SQL giving programming language options
> > rather
> > than forcign the world to just Java.

> You have been able to write functions etc. in just about any compiled
> language for Oracle for many years. Even ships with documentation and
> example. It is just most people don't do it. You have been able to write
> callable code in C from SQL Server at least since 6.5, but people don't do
> it very much because it is difficult.
>
> >
> > To put simply PL/SQL is another me too ran programming language for
> > Oracle.
>
> It isn't for anything else and never has been touted as such. It is for
> Oracle databases and that's it. Never heard anyone else say anything
> different.
>
> > If you do not trust me pose this question to Larry in the forthcoming
> > Oracle Apps world conference when Larry has is pet Q&A session that he
> > loves so much to answer. He will without hestitation say Oracle is
> > moving
> > away from PL/SQL. - Like it or not that is the truth he will even
> > abuse PL/SQL calling it proprietary and of course he will shots at SAP
> > at that but worthwhile posing this question to Larry than to us on the
> > forum or Tom Kytes.
>
> Of course, it is propriatary, I don't think anyone said it wasn't. Basic is
> propriatary also. (no standards) A lot of things are propriatary. Most
> things in the computer industry are proprietary or have a proprietary
> extension. That's how vendors sell product. They all sell product and want
> you to keep buying theirs and not the other guys. Who can blame them.
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is rather niave.
>

Many of those who don't like Java point to its speed and large memory footprint as reasons why it is no good. However, I cannot think of a single language which is as portable as Java - while it may not be as portable in all areas to the extent the Sun marketers whould like us to believe, it is still more portable than any other language I can think of. I think the other point to keep in mind is the fact memory is dropping in price and machines are increasing in speed at a very rapid rate. Back in the late 80s nobody considered basic to be a real language because it was interpreted and therefore considered to slow - now look at it. Even OO was criticised at first because of its additional overhead. However, as memory becomes cheaper and systems become faster, issues of speed and memory usage become less important and overcome by issues of maintenance, speed of development and safety.

Mention has been made of how slow and resource intensive the Java installer and other Oracle tools are. On my old home workstation, I have noticed this as well, but on our main systems at work, the slowest part of the equation is without doubt the user. These systems are fast and have lots of memory, so the Java tools work fine. I got a new workstation at work runninig Linux. It has a lot of memory and a fast processor and running the java tools on it is fine as well.

Consider the maintenance Oracle would have to put into their tools if they were not in Java. There would be different versions for each different architecture they run on - each of these different versions would have their own bugs as well as bugs common to all versions. All would need their own development and maintenance teams and even support would be more complicated. While the tools are not fantastic and certainly don't run well on slower systems with little memory, the disatisfaction experienced by users on such systems is probably outweighed by the cost benefits to Oracle.

Java is not going away anytime soon and I doubt if it will unless an alternative platform independent solution is available. I also don't think the fact Oracle is pushing java means anything other than it has added yet another supported language to the many it already has. Even if Larry does put down plsql and push Java I wouldn't read that as meaning support for pl/sql was going to be removed - Larry will say whatever he believes will improve sales, regardless of what he really believes re merits of one language versus another.

Tim

-- 
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you 
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!