Indeed. Well, it’s been suggested that calling people “stupid when not able to read”; claiming “no Answer” after an arbitrarily short time is evidence for an argument; posting a topic a topic based on a false dichotomy and again, because no one responded after an arbitrarily short time, claiming the setup turned out as expected and that’s evidence of some point… well these are all just “cultural differences and nuances in the choice of words”. I supposed it’s possible.
It’s unfortunate because there could have been an informative discussion about how the Java licensing change impacted customers in regulated and audited industries with IT security controls that don’t allow for the offered solution of “OpenJDK and that’s it”, and how Oracle continues to modify the license as a result of the situation; it was definitely a headache, if not a showstopper for some. But when it’s been asserted that “there is no licensing debacle and there was never one” and “licensing Issues of Java which not exist” and so “sorry, you are not [right]”, seems somewhat pointless to even enter into that more nuanced discussion.
Responding to each and every thing in these lengthy posts – especially all the ones never written but somehow implied – is tedious. It’s not clear to me why every forward-looking idea and question about experience with some tool or library has to immediately be cast as “it’s not production ready”. Obviously, and that’s not the claim or purpose. Every toolkit and language had to start somewhere, and people had to invest time to make them into what they are today. Those are completely different discussions than “what tool should I use for my business today?” Apples and oranges, as we (culturally) say.
So, it’s hard to reconcile the call to “bring up the engagement to fill the forum with life and positive discussions” with the responses to discussions about Go, GTK or other “hardcore looking platforms”, Lazarus, Python, .NET, GTK#, WinDev, Vala… it’s sad to see that some of these other members are less active or inactive, as I valued their insights.