Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 From: Michael Wojcik Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:46:58 -0400 Organization: Micro Focus Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p502092e07d8f03cd1ffa66525cd8f449fed93799dd5b9a9b.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4937 Steve Sobol wrote: > In article , Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >> In message , Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> >>> Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. >> C certainly is. ?Write once, run everywhere? is more true of C than it is of >> Java; a portable compiler like GCC means C is the most portable language in >> the world. Ah, argument by repeated assertion. This is still bullshit, insofar as it's anything at all. ("the most portable language in the world" is a vapid claim, since "portable" is not well-defined and there's no metric for "most".) > Well, technically, you still have to have a gcc compiler available for > your platform, but gcc *is* available on every popular platform *I* can > think of. More importantly, you have to rebuild from source each time > you deploy your app to a new platform. You don't, with Java. Recompiling arbitrary C source on a new platform only produces a working binary if the C source doesn't make any invalid assumptions about the implementation. It's rare to find non-trivial C source that doesn't make assumptions about the implementation: CHAR_BIT, endianness, character set, etc. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University