Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26198

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	2011-02-08 15:57 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Message-ID	<iiqbe9$q89$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <iijrj2$i0g$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iil6on$qvo$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4e7634$0$81475$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iinje0$7j3$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f55ba$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <4d4f55ba$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 20:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<4d4e7634$0$81475$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Silvio wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I remember how well C++ and its undefined sizes of things served us
>>> when we had to port heaps of code from 16-bit to 32-bit.
> 
> It is 8086 architecture not 80286 architecture.
> 
>> By “16-bit” I take it you specifically mean “Windows/Intel 16-bit”, i.e.
>> the segmented 80286 architecture (spit). That was the only major 16-bit
>> architecture I’m aware of that made portability difficult.
> 
> Windows has nothing to do with CPU architecture.

DOS/Windows is the only reason 8086/80286 segmented architectures became 
popular.

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:49 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:09 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 15:57 +1300

csiph-web