Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25478

Re: Java vs C++

From	Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Java vs C++
Followup-To	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	2011-02-07 12:14 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Message-ID	<iina03$2k6$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	<iijbfr$pb2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iijrj2$i0g$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iil6on$qvo$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4eafea$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia 
Shanahan wrote:

> 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.

Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:14 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:52 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:11 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:48 +1300
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 20:00 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:05 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:39 -0500

csiph-web