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

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	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:08:48 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Lines	41
Message-ID	<ij1umg$80n$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	<iijbfr$pb2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <2011020510425674637-angrybaldguy@gmailcom> <iil0or$niu$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4e25e8@news.x-privat.org> <iinah1$2up$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <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$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <iiqc0e$qt4$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d50b67b$0$23754$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host	118-92-93-33.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 1297382928 8215 118.92.93.33 (11 Feb 2011 00:08:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@ihug.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:08:48 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent	KNode/4.4.7
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25785

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show key headers only | 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