The language doesn't have to be interpreted. Java is a compiled language. It's just not compiled to the native machine code.
Most JVMs compile to native code, either JIT or ahead-of-time.
Yes I know that the JVM does a certain amount of byte code to native code translation. But this is implementation specific and not guaranteed. It's called a virtual machine for a reason.
Please clarify in your mind the differences among the language, the libraries and the JVM. Then you will realise that the specification for the Java language is silent about whether it is to be interpreted, byte-compiled or compiled to machine code. That is why I responded to your incorrect statements: "Java is a compiled language. It's just not compiled to the native machine code." by explicitly mentioning the JVM. You will also then realise why your claim that IBM has "forked" java is incorrect. (Aristotle points this out to you). As to fears of forking, they are genuine. here is a link for you: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ And here is an excerpt from one of the pages from that site: --QUOTE------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2000, Borland Software Corp. (formerly known as Inprise) released the beta version of InterBase 6.0 as open source. The community of waiting developers and users preferred to establish itself as an independent, self-regulating team rather than submit to the risks, conditions and restrictions that the company proposed for community participation in open source development. A core of developers quickly formed a project and installed its own source tree on SourceForge. They liked the Phoenix logo which was to have been ISC's brandmark and adopted the name "Firebird" for the project. Because Borland's open source efforts regarding InterBase never really took off beyond prime release of the source code and the company returned its focus to closed commercial development, Firebird became THE Open Source version of InterBase. --END OF QUOTE-------------------------------------------------------- <ethical_rant> You see what these f--ks did? Now I don't give a shit what reasons they had, they should have gotten over it like Netscape/Mozilla did. It goes against the values I hold -- respect the company for the steps they took to open their sources and work with them for the benefit of all. If you have a problem, get some self-respect and write your own damn code from scratch. As more companies open their sources, I hope that similar sentiments to mine will enter the hacker ethic. </ethical_rant>
The main reason is so that Java's fortunes are not tied to Suns fortunes. Which frankly are looking a little bleak. ...
Java as a platform is not tied to Sun's fortunes. Read the license, write code and give the code to Sun. You, IBM and MS can all do that. So far I have seen two arguments for "open sourcing" Java that are worth considering: (1) It will be convenient for Debian users since it will enable apt to transparently manage any packages. (2) Freedom will be good for the platform. To (1): This is a problem with Debian and apt. It can't be the download (I do it on my 33K) it is the hoops that /Debian/ and /apt/ require us to jump through. To (2): Yes. Let us hope that if it happens, we get a license similar in spirit to that of freedom, that Sun is given the respect it deserves and is able to profit fairly from it. And boy if I see the Firebird faction turning their evil green eyes thataway ... Sid