Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25762

Re: Java vs C++

Path	csiph.com!eeepc.pasdenom.info!news.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!203.109.252.33.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail
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	Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:48:14 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Lines	41
Message-ID	<iiplqe$efo$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	<iijbfr$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> <iina03$2k6$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <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>
NNTP-Posting-Host	118-92-86-70.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8Bit
X-Trace	lust.ihug.co.nz 1297111694 14840 118.92.86.70 (7 Feb 2011 20:48:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@ihug.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Date	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:48:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	KNode/4.4.7
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25762

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show key headers only | View raw

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

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