Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38438
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? |
| Date | 2018-06-27 20:38 +0000 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <ph0skl$igr$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <pgved1$5a4$1@news.icm.edu.pl> <ph0jpu$18e$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <696cfc2e-c998-4cc7-99fa-f680f2c5baef@googlegroups.com> |
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:24:29 -0700, Eric Douglas wrote: > Is C++ platform independent? > It is to the extent that the GNU C compiler is portable because GNU C++ is essentially just a preprocessor: it generates C, which is then fed to the GNU G compiler to produce an executable. There are a number of other languages that are part of the GNU Compiler Collection: C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, and Go. In addition, similar third-party front ends exist for Pascal, Modula-2, Modula-3 and PL/I and COBOL. I have no knowledge of other platform-independent languages apart from two: - K&R C on OS-9/68000 The C source was immediately compilable with both GNU and Borland C compilers, but the libraries were quite nonstandard, so this forced incomparible code changes on both targets. - Borland C and C++ for Windows 95. A long time ago I made an effort to learn Borland C and C++. IIRC the languages themselves were quite standards-compliant (I never tried to port them to other systems, but their non-standard support libraries made applications written with them non-portable. From the above experience I've learned that portability depends on two things: - how closely the compilers follow the language specification - in the case of 'small' languages such as C, C++ and Java, where a lot of their power comes from their standard libraries, portability also depends on the availability of standard libraries on both original and target os/hardware platforms. -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
No more free JRE - Java is dead? slawek <x.y@org.org> - 2018-06-27 09:29 +0200
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-06-27 12:00 +0000
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 08:24 -0700
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2018-06-27 20:07 +0200
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 12:24 -0700
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2018-06-27 21:50 +0200
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 13:35 -0700
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-06-27 20:38 +0000
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-06-27 20:14 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-06-28 19:40 +0000
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-06-28 18:32 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2018-06-28 23:15 +0000
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-06-27 20:09 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-06-27 21:07 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Haddock <ffm2002@web.de> - 2018-07-11 23:31 -0700
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-07-14 14:01 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:51 -0700
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2018-07-20 21:43 -0400
Re: No more free JRE - Java is dead? Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2018-07-15 14:04 +0300
csiph-web