Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9410

Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

From	Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?
Date	2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<4582482.388.1320279654255.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prog16> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <j8qkqm$pvh$1@news.albasani.net> <j8rnie$16h$1@dont-email.me> <j8rt6b$i78$1@news.albasani.net> <j8ru2g$h0j$1@dont-email.me> <j8scuj$nuq$1@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

BGB wrote:
> markspace wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>
>> I rest my case. :-)
>>
> 
> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...

Only useful for a non-portable language.

This does not establish that it would be useful for Java.

> also, C# has ifdef, so it probably isn't all bad.

Lame reasoning.

How does presence in C# argue for or against the quality of a feature compared to its presence in Java?  It would be equally valid to argue that "ifdef" is bad because Java omits it.

Do try to avoid invalid reasoning, hm?

> granted, it may reflect a different development philosophy:

Again, not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.

> what motivates people to choose, say, Java, or C#, or C++, or C, or ... 
> may in turn be driven by different sets of views and development goals.

Still not speaking to whether "ifdef" is a good or bad feature.

> so, Java tries to gain portability via homogeneity.
> so, the same code works everywhere, because everywhere is the same.

And this is bad because ... ?

> C and C++ via being flexible towards heterogeneity.

Which "flexibility" causes infamous difficulties.

> each place is different, but things like typedefs/ifdefs/... can help 
> gloss over most of the differences.

For certain values of "help".  "#ifdef" also horribly complicates C and C++ code and horribly damages readability.  This is a good thing?

> granted, it would be nice to have a consistent platform, such that one 
> doesn't really need piles of ifdef's everywhere, but this is not the 
> fault of the existence of ifdef's proper.

You have it backwards.  "#ifdef" is a reaction to a fault, not a cause.

> in a completely homogenous environment, most likely people would simply 
> not need them. however, if one doesn't have them, but are faced with a 
> heterogeneous platform (say, standard JVM vs Android), then one has a 
> mess...

Since "standard JVM" doesn't run on Android, and Dalvik doesn't run elsewhere, I fail to see the problem.

J2ME is even less compatible with "standard JVM", whatever the heck that is.

> granted, apparently (from stuff encountered elsewhere online) some 
> people have been dealing with some of these issues by feeding Java code 
> through the C preprocessor (presumably just prior to feeding it to 
> javac), but I don't know how widespread this sort of practice is.

Hopefully not very.

> or such...

What is that "or such..." about, anyway?

-- 
Lew

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

Thread

back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

csiph-web