Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.help > #1819 > unrolled thread

Compiler

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.help

Contents

  Compiler dystokia@stokeontrent.plus.com - 2012-06-04 13:40 +0100
    Re: Compiler markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-04 06:23 -0700
    Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-04 07:47 -0700
      Re: Compiler dystokia@stokeontrent.plus.com - 2012-06-05 20:06 +0100
        Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-05 17:33 -0700
          Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-05 18:29 -0700
            Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 09:46 -0700
        Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-05 17:43 -0700
          Re: Compiler dystokia@stokeontrent.plus.com - 2012-06-06 16:53 +0100
            Re: Compiler Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-06-06 09:56 -0700
            Re: Compiler markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-06 12:27 -0700
            Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 10:06 -0700
          Re: Compiler "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-06-07 09:19 +0200
          Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 09:48 -0700
            Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-07 15:09 -0700
              Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 17:20 -0700
              Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 19:01 -0700
          Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 09:55 -0700
            Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-07 15:06 -0700
              Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-07 17:26 -0700
                Re: Compiler markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-07 17:55 -0700
                  Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-08 08:05 -0700
                    Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-08 12:27 -0700
                      Re: Compiler Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-06-08 21:01 -0700
                        Re: Compiler Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-06-09 21:30 -0700
    Re: Compiler Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-04 10:49 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1840

On 6/7/2012 5:26 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:06:46 -0700 (PDT), Lew<lewbloch@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> That fact is that JavaFX is not Java.
>
> Does it use the JVM under the covers? Is it just Java with a new
> graphics library?


Lots of things use the JVM "under the covers."  Scala, Jython, etc. 
Does that make them Java?

JavaFX started out as a scripting language, intended to compete with 
Flash and Silverlight.  That turned out to be a dumb idea;  HTML 5 is 
going to obviate both, so jumping in right as the market becomes 
obsolete wasn't ever going to work.


>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/architecture/jfxpub-architecture.htm


This says that JavaFX will become an API (library) for Java.  Libraries 
aren't "Java," though they may be written in Java.  They're a part of 
the whole, not the whole itself.  So far though I don't think that the 
JavaFX API has been incorporated into rt.jar.  It's still physically 
separate in a javafx.jar file.

"Is" to me doesn't meant "uses."  Tomcat uses Java, Tomcat isn't Java. 
Mockito uses Java, Mockito isn't Java.  Java to me is the runtime API, 
plus the JVM, plus whatever other system components are used to install 
the Java platform.  Things like file associations in Windows to make Jar 
files double-clickable.  The rest of that stuff is built on top of the 
Java platform, but it is not Java.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1842

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:55:15 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :

>
>"Is" to me doesn't meant "uses." 

An alternate definition would based around the idea "what is included
with Java?"  What can you guarantee is present?

On the other paw, strictly speaking none of the libraries are part of
the Java language except things like String and Thread.

There are all kinds of packages you can download free from Oracle that
plug in to Java.   Oracle would consider them part of their Java
offering or Java budget.

By alternate definitions is JavaMail, JMF, Derby, Javafx ... part of
Java? It is the sort of thing only Oracle could definitively rule on
and would not change the practicalities.

-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming.
~ Brian W. Kernighan 1942-01-01
.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1843

Roedy Green wrote:
> markspace wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> "Is" to me doesn't meant "uses." 
> 
> An alternate definition would based around the idea "what is included
> with Java?"  What can you guarantee is present?

The language itself, the java.* packages and the javax.* packages.

> On the other paw, strictly speaking none of the libraries are part of
> the Java language except things like String and Thread.

And all the java.* and javax.* packages.

Including things you left out like java.lang.Object, java.lang.Enum, java.io.Serializable, java.io.Externalizable, java.lang.Iterable, java.io.Closeable, ...

> There are all kinds of packages you can download free from Oracle that
> plug in to Java.   Oracle would consider them part of their Java
> offering or Java budget.

Have you checked that with Oracle? I notice that you you stop short of 
the claim that Oracle would consider them part of Java itself.

> By alternate definitions is JavaMail, JMF, Derby, Javafx ... part of
> Java? It is the sort of thing only Oracle could definitively rule on
> and would not change the practicalities.

No, they aren't.

Are they included in the JavaSE compatibility test suite?

<http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/docs/JCK6bUsersGuide/html/p7.html>

Nope. Q.E.D.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1844

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Nope. Q.E.D.

I don't think you have a proved anything.  You proposed yet another
plausible definition, not that it is the official definition of what
Java includes. To do that you would have to find something definitive
on the Oracle website.

But it is an argument that does not really matter.  If JavaFX is
declared external to Java, it still comes bundled with the JDK which
is a fact that has real world consequences where the first
classification does not.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming.
~ Brian W. Kernighan 1942-01-01
.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1845

On 06/08/2012 09:01 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Lew<lewbloch@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Nope. Q.E.D.
>
> I don't think you have a proved anything.  You proposed yet another
> plausible definition, not that it is the official definition of what
> Java includes. To do that you would have to find something definitive
> on the Oracle website.

But that is on the Oracle website, and it is definitive.

It doesn't get to be called Java if it doesn't pass the Java CTK. If it does, 
it gets to be called Java. That's Oracle's rules.

I don't understand why you don't consider that definitive.

> But it is an argument that does not really matter.  If JavaFX is
> declared external to Java, it still comes bundled with the JDK which
> is a fact that has real world consequences where the first
> classification does not.

You mean the classification whereby something does or does not get to be 
called Java doesn't have consequences? Given that this part of the discussion 
is about what does or does not officially constitute Java?

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I just don't follow your chain of thought.

I don't see you how you can just decide that Oracle's official test for 
whether something meets the definition of what it is to be called Java doesn't 
count in a discussion of what Oracle officially defines to be called Java.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1823

On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:40:14 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Here's an easy one.  I want to learn a little Java - nothing very
> complicated - but need a compiler.
> 
> Can anyone suggest a suitable one?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Java+compiler+download

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.help

csiph-web