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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #19331

Re: 32 or 64

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote:

> don wrote:
>> don wrote:
>>> For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
>>> bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them? 
> 
> Depends.
> 
> I have both installed, but I have not used the 32-bit version on a 64-bit 
> computer in years.
> 
>>> Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like
> 
> Which ones require the 32-bit version? No Java program, for sure.
> 
>>> eclipse [sic]. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
>>> that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version. 
> 
> And yet they include a 64-bit JAR for the SWT part, which contains native code.
> Hmm. Could you be mistaken?

Perhaps more recent versions will run with 64 bit Java. As of two or so
years ago they didn't

> There's nothing in the Vuze documentation that limits it to using 32-bit Java.
> 
>>> It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on
> 
> Especially since you don't.
> 
>>> a machine. I’d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
>>> bit would be the one to use since it’s probably the most compatible. And
> 
> They're equally compatible. Java bytecode doesn't change for 64-bit vs. 32-bit.
> 
>>> that seems like moving backwards.
> 
> The operative word being "seems" since the premise is false.
> 
>> One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn’t it desirable 
>> that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and 
>> obsolete the 32 bit version? 
> 
> No, since one doesn't render the other obsolete.
> 
>> For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all 
>> the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users 
>> to have installed two versions of the Java VM?
> 
> No, but then no one does.
> 
> What other obstacles? Java is arguably the most widely accepted programming 
> language right now. Certainly it's up there.
> 
> Facts not in evidence, premise of the question not valid, there is no 
> meaningful answer.

Uh OK. 

I don't mean to split hairs but in my experience 32 bit versions of eclipse
required a 32 bit JVM. Likewise Vuze. 32 bit Firefox requires a 32 bit JVM
to run applets. I don't have much of a list because it consists only of
those programs which I use or have used and my recollections of them.
Certainly there have been enough of these for me to know that, of programs
which require Java to run, some of them require 32 bit JVM's and some 64.
Is this really a point of contention?

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 11:58 -0400
  Re: 32 or 64 Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-14 12:41 -0400
  Re: 32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 13:53 -0400
    Re: 32 or 64 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-14 14:37 -0400
    Re: 32 or 64 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 11:38 -0700
      Re: 32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 15:10 -0400
        Re: 32 or 64 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 21:31 -0700
  Re: 32 or 64 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-10-14 22:43 -0700

csiph-web