|
Authored by: Cassandra on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
On that basis, I would have a difficult time describing either of them as
"core".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
Regarding number 3 there is also the question of whether that syntax is at all
original in Java and the answer is no as C++ and others were using it before
Java came along. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
This has bothered me throughout this whole thing...
The idea of "core APIs" is flawed because, as you note, there is no
specific definition. However, that is because the concept only arises when
someone is trying to include or exclude a subset. It came up here because
Oracle tried to say APIs were separate, and Google replied that you needed some
to do "even a basic program".
But the whole point of a language isn't to do the bare minimum, it is to do
whatever the programmer needs. And the libraries the APIs exist for are there
so the language doesn't have to become outrageously bloated to be able to do
that.
So if I want to write a specific program, the "core" APIs are the ones
I need for that program, not the bare minimum for "hello world". And
if what I need isn't provided, I can write my own, without having to re-write
the language.
So it seems to my non-legal mind, that the "core" part is the language
itself, and the libraries and accompanying APIs are all of equal value, to be
included as needed.
I have been puzzled why Google hasn't pointed this out, instead of going along
with the piecemeal "core" vs "non-core" misdirection.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
People seem be having trouble answering #6, even though the API designers have
already done all the work for us.
The packages that start with java. are the core packages, the extras all start
with javax.
When writing a Java application, I'd expect them all to be present to use if I
needed them.
The thing you have to remember is that, despite what Oracle might claim, Android
is not Java. It has it's own set of APIs, with a few of them borrowed from Java.
The 50+ packages are not the Java Core APIs, they are just the ones Google
engineers considered useful in a mobile environment. Writing a whole Java
application with just those would be a painful experience.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|