Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26013

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	2011-02-11 13:11 +1300
Organization	Geek Central
Message-ID	<ij1urf$80n$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <iinje0$7j3$7@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d4f55ba$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4d5032a8$0$41114$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <iiqbho$q89$5@lust.ihug.co.nz> <4d50b4e8$0$23754$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>

Followups directed to: comp.lang.java.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

In message <4d50b4e8$0$23754$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 07-02-2011 21:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<4d5032a8$0$41114$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Silvio wrote:
>>
>>> For certain APIs (MS Windows conatins lots of them) struct layout
>>> assumpations are essential.
>>
>> POSIX manages such things in a portable way.
> 
> No.
> 
> POSIX does the same thing as Windows.

POSIX is designed for portability in a way that Windows is not. Where Win32 
uses explicitly-sized types of 32 bits or 16 bits or whatever, POSIX uses 
symbolic names that can be handled differently by different implementations.

Consider why there was even a need for a Win64, when there is no “POSIX64”.

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

Thread

Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-06 00:15 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:55 +1300
    Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-10 21:58 +1100
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-02-10 17:23 -0800
        Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-12 05:40 -0500
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-02-10 06:28 -0800
        Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-10 09:32 -0500
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Heike Svensson <hsvensson.1093x1_q@hotmail.nospam.com.please> - 2011-02-13 11:04 -0500
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-10 07:00 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:15 -0500
      Re: Troll warning Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-09 17:02 -0500
        Re: Troll warning Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-13 11:40 -0500
      Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-09 15:48 +1100
        Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-09 00:15 -0500
          Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-02-09 07:43 -0800
          Re: Troll warning Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-09 16:29 -0500
            Re: Troll warning "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-02-09 13:52 -0800
          Re: Troll warning Nigel Wade <nmw-news@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2011-02-09 13:12 +0000
            Re: Troll warning Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-09 08:22 -0500
            Re: Troll warning Sulfide Eater <zaxx1108@example.com> - 2011-02-09 16:28 -0500
          Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-09 07:46 -0500
          Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-02-09 07:41 -0800
      Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:13 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-11 13:11 +1300
      Re: Java vs C++ Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-02-08 09:00 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 14:13 +1100
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 20:31 +1300
        Re: [OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-02-08 16:53 +1100
          Re: Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 20:32 +1300
        [OT] Intel architecture (Was: Java vs C++) Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-07 23:19 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-07 18:58 +0100
        Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 19:59 -0500
        Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 15:59 +1300
      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
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 09:47 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 16:00 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:07 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 21:22 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:26 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-06 14:30 -0500
  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++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-06 20:42 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-02-07 21:03 -0800
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:51 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2011-02-07 20:43 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:54 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:08 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 15:10 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 19:57 -0500
      Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:51 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-02-05 09:24 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:28 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:39 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 15:20 -0500
    Re: Java vs C++ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-02-06 10:55 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Pitch <mail@fake.info> - 2011-02-05 13:01 +0100
    Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-06 01:24 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-05 09:38 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-05 09:32 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Jef <e70838@gmail.com> - 2011-02-09 04:34 -0800
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 21:12 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 14:53 +1300
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 09:30 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-02-05 15:02 +0100
  Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:49 -0500

csiph-web