Is Eclipse a run-time rival for Java, .NET?

[Ramon F Herrera]

"The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
organization has set its sights on the run-time arena and will take on
Sun's Java and Microsoft's .NET with what it says is an agnostic open
source component model that runs across multiple operating systems and
computing tiers."

[...]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2136&tag=nl.e539
http://tinyurl.com/2b2pat

-RFH

 

[Mark Space]

"The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
organization has set its sights on the run-time arena and will take on
Sun's Java and Microsoft's .NET with what it says is an agnostic open
source component model that runs across multiple operating systems and
computing tiers."

[...]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2136&tag=nl.e539
http://tinyurl.com/2b2pat

-RFH

Christ. It sounds like they've taken leave of their senses.

This comment on the ZD Net blog was interesting:

"Equinox is not an alternative to Java, since it's a layer on top of the
Java virtual machine and class loading concepts.

I wouldn't even say it was an alternative to .NET."

Which makes more sense. But still, do we need yet another layer in
Java, just so someone can make their own object broker? Sounds kinda
fishy to me.

 

[Mike Schilling]

"The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
organization has set its sights on the run-time arena and will take on
Sun's Java and Microsoft's .NET with what it says is an agnostic open
source component model that runs across multiple operating systems and
computing tiers."

[...]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2136&tag=nl.e539
http://tinyurl.com/2b2pat

-RFH

Christ. It sounds like they've taken leave of their senses.

This comment on the ZD Net blog was interesting:

"Equinox is not an alternative to Java, since it's a layer on top of the
Java virtual machine and class loading concepts.

I wouldn't even say it was an alternative to .NET."

Which makes more sense. But still, do we need yet another layer in Java,
just so someone can make their own object broker? Sounds kinda fishy to
me.

As the quote says, it doesn't sit on top of Java, it sits on top of the JVM.
Presumably the .NET implementation sits on top of the CLR. There isn't
enough information there to see how much sense this thing makes, but a
cross-platform solution isn't a priori silly, any more than a Posix library
that lets your C++ code run on both Windows and Unix is silly.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

"The Eclipse organization has amassed a huge installed base of
developers using its Java-based open source development tools. Now the
organization has set its sights on the run-time arena and will take on
Sun's Java and Microsoft's .NET with what it says is an agnostic open
source component model that runs across multiple operating systems and
computing tiers."

[...]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2136&tag=nl.e539
http://tinyurl.com/2b2pat

Misleading headline.

They are apparently developing a component model for Java.

The competitive products must be MS COM (not COM+ that is
equivalent to EJB) and OOo UNO.

Arne