Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25762
| 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 | 2011-02-08 09:48 +1300 |
| Organization | Geek Central |
| Message-ID | <iiplqe$efo$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iinj85$7j3$5@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iinkcc$87t$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f5774$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer
In message <4d4f5774$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 06-02-2011 21:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >>> On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> A simple data type. >>> >>> But it is still a characteristics of array not of long. >> >> Which is a limitation that comes from a fixation on 32-bit architectures, >> without a thought for 64-bit ones. > > It is not an assumption about 32 bit architecture. 32 bit > architecture limits it more than the Java rule. But the Java rule is the limitation now.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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