Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26077

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 16:06 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Message-ID	<iiqc0e$qt4$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <4d4f45fc$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iio24q$g2f$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <iiop28$8jj$1@news.eternal-september.org> <iipka1$d4o$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d5094f2$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <4d5094f2$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 07-02-2011 15:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<iiop28$8jj$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Joshua Cranmer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/07/2011 01:06 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<4d4f45fc$0$23760$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> And the C spec leaves a lot of things to implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Not too much that you can’t write portable code in it.
>>>
>>> Writing portable code in C pretty much requires you to do hefty
>>> compatibility layers.
>>
>> Not really. Sticking to standard POSIX types like size_t, time_t etc gets
>> you a lot of the way there.
> 
> POSIX does not cover all aspects.

Well, you need tools like autoconf as well to handle the more complicated 
cases.

> And not all platforms are POSIX compliant.

All the ones worth using are.

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:22 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-11 13:08 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:57 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:06 +1300

csiph-web