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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26110

Re: Java vs C++

Show all headers | View raw

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".

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.

Patricia

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous 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