• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    It was expensive for Google, but they’ve done the hard work of establishing the precedent. It’s much easier to fight when you have a strong binding precedent on your side.

    • paf0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t have to fight if I just use something else. There is very little advantage to using Java when everything from .NET to Node to Ruby to Python are all super mature and have a similar amount of open source packages available. There might still be a question of performance and for that we have Go, Rust and elixir- not quite as mature but all still can do everything I need and then some.

      As an added bonus, none of those frameworks have Larry Ellison lurking around the corner waiting to sue me if he decides to change the terms of license. Java is dead to me.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            They could though! Microsoft has a long history of “embrace, extend, extinguish”!

            You may be willing to put your company at risk because you trust Microsoft but I’m not going to.

            • paf0@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Feel free to do you, I have told you this already. Seeing you’re unable to drop the conversation, when did Microsoft ever sue someone for using C#? I trust Microsoft far more than Oracle (reasons detailed in another comment). However, I do not run Microsoft software at my company at this time, other things work better for what I need.