From: Archie Cobbs (archie@whistle.com)
Date: Tue Nov 03 1998 - 21:50:15 EST
Godmar Back writes:
> In Kaffe's case, I see a couple of things that might hinder Kaffe from becomi
> more dynamic (I'm referring to points made in the MS memo here):
>
> a) The Noosphere is maybe too small, at least compared to, say Japhar/Classpa
> At least it may be perceived as being too small.
>
> b) There is little or no componentization framework (which the author points
> out is an absolute necessity for the success of any OSS) is maybe not stro
> enough. (gc is an example, but also the jit or the verifier)
>
> c) The goal is maybe not entirely clear to the public. (i.e. is it
> PersonalJava compliance? Is it 1.2 compliance? Is it 1.2 minus deprecated
> functions? Is it 1.2 minus old event model? Is it 1.1 plus something?
> Is it 1.2 minus something plus something?)
Good points.. #b is exactly what I was complaining about a while ago
after hearing about gcj.. because kaffe and gcj are both monolithic,
sadly, there's duplication of work and fragmenting of valuable talent.
Whether or not gcj exists, Kaffe suffers from being too monolithic.
Makes it harder for developers to learn what the heck is going on :-)
But compared to anything Microsoft has ever released, I'll take Kaffe anyday.
-Archie
___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:02 EDT