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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25785

Re: Java vs C++

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <4d50b67b$0$23754$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 07-02-2011 22:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
> 
> The existence of that tool is an indication that there is a
> portability problem.

Which it solves.

> But autoconf does not solve all problems.

Enough of them to fulfil the needs of hundreds of thousands of portable 
software packages.

>>> And not all platforms are POSIX compliant.
>>
>> All the ones worth using are.
> 
> Well - I don't think anyone defines portability as running unchanged on
> the platform one specific person considers worth using.

Except I’m talking about an order of magnitude more different platforms than 
you are.

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

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:20 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-11 13:08 +1300

csiph-web