[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Quitting debian-java

Alan KF LAU <akflau@itsd.gcn.gov.hk> writes:

> As a Java programmer I seriously suspect any one could build a
> commercial-level(in-house, transaction-based, etc.) java application
> without java.security.

I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".

"commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based".
And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based
without java.security - it just makes some things easier.

> My question is, Kaffe is funded by Microsoft(see my links in previous
> mail).

"is funded" is a misleading statement.  Given my previous response,
one might wonder: are you being deliberately misleading?

> Who is determining such a low priority in implementing a feature so
> important? - The funder Microsoft? Or the developers deliberately
> cripple Java to a toy-programming language? 

Let's see:  C does not include the functionality of java.security,
so it must be a toy-programming language.  C++ is the same way.
All languages except Java-with-java.security are toy languages?
Nonsense.  You have a very parochial view of "commercial-level"
> I wouldn't believe the developers would like to see Kaffe become a toy.
> My apology for being surjective but it's very suspicious.


One could turn the question around:  why are you making these
poorly-justified accusations and innunendos?

(Note I am not particularly interested in the success of Kaffe,
given my association with Gcj, which can be viewed as a Kaffe
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/

Reply to: