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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25521

Re: Java vs C++

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-02-06 12:06 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<iijrj2$i0g$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>
>> My copy of the C++0x draft reference standard, i.e. the copy sent out
>> for a ballot by national bodies, consisted of no fewer than 1300
>> numbered pages.
>
> Yeah, so C++ continues to leap ahead into even greater complexity.
>
>> 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.
>
>> So 684 pages of well-written, easily-understood text ...
>
> Not quite so “well-written, easily-understood”, as I have pointed out
> elsewhere. The mistakes seem particularly concentrated in the parts
> describing the newer language features.

You haven't actually pointed out any mistakes. Now, if your intent is to 
point out parts of the JLS that you find hard to understand, and your 
argument is that if _you_ are having problems then so are many others, 
then a more productive approach would be (1) to phrase it that way, and 
(2) offer a suggestion or two that you think is better. But you haven't 
located any flat-out mistakes yet.

I find the various versions of the JLS to be considerably better than 
most other language or API specs I've had to wade through.

AHS

-- 
We must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era - a 
permanent state of what I call violent peace.
-- James D. Watkins

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-02-06 09:43 -0400

csiph-web