xterm be nice.
There are a lot of misconceptions in both the article you linked to as well as the title you gave this thread. Where to start?
1- Java is not dying
Far from it. It has actually a
pretty strong future ahead of it. If I wanted to sum it up in a few words that would be it:
Java is a term that defines several things:
- A programming language
- A virtual maching (the JVM)
- A ton of libraries doing all kinds of things (JEE, JME, ...)
This classification doesn't come from me, but from a
retired notorious hacker. Don't let the title fool you though, jwz argues in this article that Java is (was at the time?) the only language worth his while.
About the above mentioned definition:
- JEE is not going anywhere. Enterprises and corporation all around the globe would not do business without it.
- The JVM may not have fulfilled entirely its promises of utopian portability, but it is by far one of the steadiest eco-systems for developing on. It's debatable, but a lot of people would argue that programming managed code for this kind of machine is greatly superior to programming for a physical machine directly.
The JVM is slowly evolving to accept all kinds of parallel languages like Scala, Groovy, Clojure, JRuby or Jython. These languages (except maybe Jython) are booming right now.
- Java the language is having a hard time renew itself, due to its strong legacy. My main beef with it (and xterm opened my eyes to that), is poor support of functional paradigm and high verbosity. On the other hand, it is probably the most widespread language today, finding Java devs is easy for any kind of manager, and certain features like Interfaces or Generics are proving to be pretty apt at managing large code bases (whether you like them or not).
Disclaimer: I hate programming in Java and hope that I'll never have to touch it in my life ever again.
In any case, thinking that the success and potential survival of Java is linked to the Android eco-system is short-sighted at best.
2- Android is not moving to C#
The article linked here is a classic case of a journalist looking for a scoop. I'm sad to say this is definitely not the first time I see arstechnica doing this. Take my advice and don't follow this website anymore.
Xamarin is made of a team of old Novell employees (they started working on Mono there) who specializes in developing an alternate implementation for the .NET framework, the Mono platform. The fact that they developed a
prototype implementation of Android in C# does not mean anything. Seriously it's just a company deeply rooted in Open Source thinking (Miguel de Icaza, the founder is also the founder of the GNOME project) trying to showcase what they are able to do with alternative implementations of .NET.
It is not meant to replace Dalvik, nor is it marketed this way!
Don't believe the shallow "legal" analysis the author does in his article. Google is having enough trouble fighting the legal department of Oracle. It is fully aware that as soon as they think about moving to C#, somewhere in Redmond, a light bulb will turn on in the head of a genius lawyer: "You know how we could make a lot of money?..." It is one thing to let little Miguel play with C# (something he was only allowed to do after signing deals with Microsoft directly, both at Novell and Xamarin), it would be completely different if Google would make a ton of money out of it.
Also, Google is not ready to drop support for the existing (very large despite its young age) Java code base, all the good Android app developers have already presented. Imagine apps like Instagram, Facebook or Angry Birds forced to rewrite their app from scratch, simply to please the arstechinca writer in search for a moment of fame and glory.