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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26061

Re: Java vs C++

Show all headers | View raw

On 06-02-2011 13:55, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 05-02-2011 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<iijrj2$i0g$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>>> wrote:
>>>> Also take into consideration the fact that the C++ standard does not
>>>> try
>>>> to pin stuff down into unambiguous interoperable statements, e.g., a
>>>> precise size definition for size_t.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that’s another drawback of Java, that it explicitly
>>> defines
>>> the sizes of things from the viewpoint of 32-bit architectures like
>>> those
>>> current in the 1990s. Some of those decisions look less wonderful on
>>> current
>>> 64-bit architectures.
>>
>> There are nothing in defining the size of the simple data types
>> that are tied to 32 bit architecture.
>
> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and long".

It is somewhat related, but 32 bit architectures could
operate on 64 bit data (VAX does) and it could be implemented
atomicly.

> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in the
> simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String, Set, List
> etc.

Yep.

Arne

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:28 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:39 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:20 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-02-06 10:55 -0800

csiph-web