Just returned from Skype Developer Conference in NYC. Also made a presentation on Innerpass' architecture and how it is integrated with/utilizes Skype.

Integration BTW is achieved with a Javascript abstraction. Depending upon OS and browser, Javascript calls either an ActiveX control or a java applet. This symmetry, in my opinion, makes development, debugging and maintenance easier.

For ActiveX, Skype4Com was used.

For Java, Skype4Java I extended/bug fixed Skype4Java and wrapped in a signed applet.

Probably the most interesting topics, from my perspective anyway, was how to deliver Skype functionality to Web browsers - sans Skype client - and utilizing Skype on a server. I am eager to hear more, particularly on client-less call participation. The big question for this scenario was obviously the codecs (how they would be downloaded, how they would run, etc) - although Skype client obviously does more than that (e.g. call routing, call state management) .

Main Takeways from Eclipse Con (Santa Clara, CA 3/4-8)

• Eclipse development is about we (us/community), not me or I. Developers need to be social. As someone who has reverbed between engineering and sales/marketing, sure. But for some it may be new. But I am also no longer a committer anywhere - so it is easy for me to say ;-)
• Less is more - particularly when it comes to preso's. As an example, James Governor's (from Redmonk) session was minimalistic - some slides had one word on them - but stayed with me.
  
• Got an updated perspective on Eclipse - kind of like a trade association with bits. Some pioneering still to do but I think they are on the right track. One big question I think is how far can an IDE-focused organization go? Developers want tooling but people/enterprises want OS's, platforms, applications, solutions.
  
• Spent time with some of the Apache Maven folks and an interesting company (Simula Labs) they are part of. They cracked open Apache XAP (which BTW had its first incubator release - o.3.0 - Applause!) and worked on a Maven build for it. I look forward to the results and insights (is Maven good for Javascript?).
• Eclipse and more generally Open Source business models need more attention. Probably shouldn't rival technical sessions in number, but more depth and analysis would be helpful.
  
• Look forward to followups at AjaxWorld and Open AjaxAlliance F2F in 2 weeks in NY. Ajax was BIG topic here - faster growing than Java - Eclipse-Ajax is even tracking with Visual Studio-Ajax, according to some job-based analysis provided by Don Smith of Eclipse. The game is changing....
  

Was Steve Jobs right?

Was he right when he dissed Java recently (setting the Java world aflutter)?

Well noone wants to bet against the Legend himself, certainly not a mere mortal like me with far fewer 0 (zero)'s in my bank account (and far fewer bank accounts I am sure), but, let me raise some ahem points:

1. What are you going to do with all those existing Java applications? We still have Fortran and Cobol.


2. Why (back to this century) isn't there room for more than 1 "rich client" technology in the browser, phones and end user devices in general? iPhone may support Javascript but can one technology be the be all and end all? (I don't care how cool - or is it hot - Ajax/JS is. It is NOT easy to build robust complex apps in. Things that are easy in Java - like avoiding name space collisions to take a simple example - is too hard in Javascript. And things that are hard in Java - like building a ui table that handles 100,000 rows - is virtually impossible in Ajax.) . Maybe a phone doesn't need to support high performance applications (yet!), but does it make sense to limit client technologies to the flavor of the month? I think not.
   


3. Wouldn't it be better to assume there will multiple client technologies? (Ajax - XML/HttpRequest this year but what about next or the next 2? ) There are too many devices. (Heck even Apple might come up with a better rendering technology for cell phones.) So Java vs Ajax vs html/dhtml vs Flex is the wrong question. Wouldn't it be better to plan for multiple uses, faces or skins for an application or for multiple client technologies? Wouldn't it be better to code the UI or at least the user interactions and page flows independent of the client technology du jour and plan for both change as well as innovation? The reality of multi-faceted, dynamic and truly reusable/extensible applications is here - or at least the potential for it is.
   

And all these changes or lack of easy change cost - in real costs, in time, in opportunities lost.

And, unlike Steve, I can't afford to waste any of my 0's.