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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25701

Re: Java vs C++

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.

What is long?

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | 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 21:22 -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