This is so biased that that its fairly offensive. Their 'source' articles are grossly misrepresented.
I would like to see a link to an article that is more balanced (too bad groklaw isn't around anymore). Does anyone have a more suitable source document for discussion?
I agree. From what I can tell, the site appears to be a platform for launching sidebar ads. The content seems to be an afterthought.
Just look at their definition of Chrome OS. "Chrome OS is basically a crippled netbook that currently requires constant internet connection to function, and to allow Google data-mining and ad serving."
Last time I checked, Chrome OS was an operating system, not a netbook. And a netbook whose main job is to surf the web isn't a "crippled" netbook...it's just a netbook.
You know, the alternatives might not be great, but between Go and JavaScript V8, I bet Google could pull Java out of Android. It might take a few years, but it's possible. Then again, Oracle is trying to get Google to pay the $6 billion it paid for Sun.
Google should have just bought Sun, sold off the hardware business to say IBM, and kept Java and the patents.
In this case I think the nerds at Google were too clever for their own good and it's going to bite them in the long run.
What do you do with all the third-party software if you tear Java out of Android? I guess you could have a cross-compiler to <other-language> and run it automatically on install, with an option to run it at development time.
But that means you need to also re-implement the entire Java SDK in <other-language>, not to mention the entire Android SDK. Wowzer. Big project. But you're right, it seems possible.
I would like to see a link to an article that is more balanced (too bad groklaw isn't around anymore). Does anyone have a more suitable source document for discussion?