Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9819

Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

From	BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?
Date	2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
Organization	albasani.net
Message-ID	<j9fpkk$v1p$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <4582482.388.1320279654255.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prog16> <j8t5kr$1mj$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb3387f$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j9e9hl$f62$1@news.albasani.net> <4ebb280f$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/9/2011 6:25 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/9/2011 11:25 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 5:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2011 12:34 AM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 5:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>> markspace wrote:
>>>>>>> BGB wrote:
>>>>>>>> for example, someone could make an extended form of Java
>>>>>>>> which adds ifdef's...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rest my case. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but, ifdef is a useful and powerful feature...
>>>>>
>>>>> Only useful for a non-portable language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C and C++ apps run on plenty enough targets to demonstrate that they
>>>> are
>>>> useful for portable code.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of C/C++ apps that runs on many platforms.
>>>
>>> But portability for Java and portability for those does not
>>> mean the same thing.
>>>
>>> Java portability mean that you upload the jar file and
>>> run it as is.
>>>
>>> C/C++ portability means that you do the proper defines, often
>>> add some new ifdef sections and then rebuild the code for
>>> the target platform.
>>>
>>
>> yep, this is an advantage of a bytecoded program representation vs a
>> traditional precompiled binary.
>>
>> my case is sort of a hybrid:
>> generic HLL code should presumably be (reasonably) portable;
>> but, the program may still use ifdefs for OS-specific stuff (and may or
>> may not be limited to targets with a compatible combination of ifdefs).
>>
>> however, for the most part HLL code will likely depend some on the
>> underlying app, so will generally only be as portable as the underlying
>> app. Java, OTOH, is designed mostly for creating standalone apps (so,
>> its portability is mostly bound by library and run-time features...).
>
> But almost all widely used Java libraries are pure Java and
> therefore portable as well.
>

except:
this doesn't work as well if one wants to use Java as a scripting 
language for an app written primarily in C and C++ (say, using Java like 
it were Lua or Python or similar...).

then, one doesn't care as much what sort of libraries Java provides, but 
rather how readily it can access facilities provided by the host app.

if the host-app is large (say, multi-Mloc or so), then porting it to 
Java may be a non-option (nor necessarily a good tradeoff).

FWIW, an elaborate ECMAScript variant does a better job here...

there is at least no assumption that people will want to rewrite their 
entire app in ECMAScript.

nevermind ECMAScript has its own issues, but at least with ones' own 
implementation, they can work around any technical issues however they 
see fit (vs, say, having to live with the relative "tyranny" of the 
SpiderMonkey developers/maintainers or similar...).

or such...

Thread

back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

csiph-web