Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9810

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

Date	2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
From	Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?
References	(6 earlier) <j8scuj$nuq$1@news.albasani.net> <4582482.388.1320279654255.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prog16> <j8t5kr$1mj$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb3387f$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j9e9hl$f62$1@news.albasani.net>
Message-ID	<4ebb280f$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> (permalink)
Organization	SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/9/2011 11:25 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 5:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they are
>>> useful for portable code.
>>
>> There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.
>>
>> But portability for Java and portability for those does not
>> mean the same thing.
>>
>> Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
>> run it as is.
>>
>> C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
>> add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
>> the target platform.
>>
>
> yep, this is an advantage of a bytecoded program representation vs a
> traditional precompiled binary.
>
> my case is sort of a hybrid:
> generic HLL code should presumably be (reasonably) portable;
> but, the program may still use ifdefs for OS-specific stuff (and may or
> may not be limited to targets with a compatible combination of ifdefs).
>
> however, for the most part HLL code will likely depend some on the
> underlying app, so will generally only be as portable as the underlying
> app. Java, OTOH, is designed mostly for creating standalone apps (so,
> its portability is mostly bound by library and run-time features...).

But almost all widely used Java libraries are  pure Java and
therefore portable as well.

Arne

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

Thread

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

csiph-web