Opinion: Pure Java is Evil

An article in today's USA Today really got me thinking, and though I'mexpecting the Java fans in the audience to be up in arms over this, I havecome to one undeniable conclusion:

Java is evil. Let me be more specific: "Pure Java" is evil.

OK, that's sort of a blanket statement. But let's look at the facts. Kevin Maney writes a weekly Technology column for USA Today. This week's columnfocuses on the strange--but very real--parallel's between Java, the Sunprogramming language, and Communism, the failed ideology. Now, I'm notpreaching some 1990's version of the "Red Scare" here, but as a formerprogrammer and someone who is obviously very interested in the computerindustry, I'm more than a little nervous about the popularity of Java as itis now. Here's the reason:

Java levels the field, making all clients--that is, systems run by users--equal. This means that a Mac owner using Java is equal to a Windows owner using Java. They are both equals to the guy running Java on his old 486 withWindows 3.1. This sounds like a good thing when you hear Sun talk about it("write once, read everywhere" or whatever the marketing-speak is this week)but the truth of the matter here is that we choose our computing systemsvery carefully and we do so for specific reasons. A person who buys a Mac,for example, might be interested in high-end desktop publishing or graphicswork and may use multiple monitors. Windows users are looking for the bestselection of software--be it business apps, games, or whatever--and havecome to expect programs to look and run a certain way. Mac owners don't wanttheir applications to look like Windows programs (witness the disaster knownas Word 6.0 for the Macintosh). Likewise, Windows users don't want theirprograms to work like Mac programs (Fractal Design Painter comes to mind).Pure Java would make every system the same, or "equal."

It must be stopped.

Surveys have concluded that people want more speed and power out of theircomputers, not less. Intel could have made more advances in motherboardtechnology in the past five years, but people wanted raw speed, and to themasses, that means processor MHz. Microsoft could have componentized Officeyears ago, and not kept adding feature bulk, but frankly, that's whatpeople asked for. Real users don't want to download light applications overthe Internet to edit text, they want to have these programs locally, righton their huge hard drives. That's human nature, I guess. When I hear aboutupcoming 300 and 400 MHz CPUs, I want one. When I hear about little Javaterminals, I just laugh.

In the Java world, we're all equals. We run identical hardware and run thesame small programs. The irony, of course, is that this "dream" requires some pretty hefty hardware on the server side and this is where Sun isreally hoping to make some cash. You see, Sun makes servers. Big, industrial-strength servers. Their Java gospel is all the more insidious when you consider that part of their plan includes the state-run, excuseme, the Sun server farms that will be needed all over the world.

There are bigger problems, though. Conformity breeds mediocrity and thelack of competition will be stifling. The reason Windows is so great todayis that the MacOS and even OS/2 were there for years, offering up (at thetime) superior technology and user interfaces. Had these products not existed, Microsoft would have had little incentive to improve Windows sodramatically. In a "Pure Java" world, there will be a similar lack ofincentive to improve hardware and software and the free market of computingwe so soundly enjoy today will be over.

Don't let this happen.

Now, I'm not an anti-Sun person, though I'm a little sickened by their attempt to out-Microsoft Microsoft. I'm also not an anti-Java person, though you may think I am. I am somewhat of a fan of Java. The programming language, that is. Not the NC OS. Not the "Pure Java" baloney Sun is preaching. Programming languages become great when they are improved for the sake of particular platforms. Ugly little BASIC is now the elegant and best-selling Visual Basic 5.0. Nobody really programs in ANSI C but Visual C++ is a great tool for Windows and I understand that CodeWorks has a similar position in the Mac world. If we could only program in ANSI C, Windows and the Mac would not the be the beautiful, elegant platforms they are today. They would be ugly. They would be wrong.

They would be like Pure Java