Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.42!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!74.125.46.80.MISMATCH!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 74 Message-ID: <4582482.388.1320279654255.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prog16> References: <4eb0a862$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 2620:0:1000:fd2b:224:d7ff:fe69:5838 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1320279655 16970 127.0.0.1 (3 Nov 2011 00:20:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 00:20:55 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2620:0:1000:fd2b:224:d7ff:fe69:5838; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9410 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