Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25478 > unrolled thread

Re: Java vs C++

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-07 12:14 +1300
    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++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-06 20:39 -0500

#25478 — Re: Java vs C++

In message <b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia 
Shanahan wrote:

> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and long".
>
> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in the
> simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String, Set, List
> etc.

Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#25701

In message <4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>> Shanahan wrote:
>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
>>> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and
>>> long".
>>>
>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in the
>>> simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String, Set, List
>>> etc.
>>
>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.

What is long?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25702

In message <4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
>>>>> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and
>>>>> long".
>>>>>
>>>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in
>>>>> the simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String,
>>>>> Set, List etc.
>>>>
>>>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
>>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.
>>
>> What is long?
> 
> A simple data type.
> 
> But it is still a characteristics of array not of long.

Which is a limitation that comes from a fixation on 32-bit architectures, 
without a thought for 64-bit ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25762

In message <4d4f5774$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> On 06-02-2011 21:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>>>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32
>>>>>>> bit architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double
>>>>>>> and long".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in
>>>>>>> the simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String,
>>>>>>> Set, List etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.
>>>>
>>>> What is long?
>>>
>>> A simple data type.
>>>
>>> But it is still a characteristics of array not of long.
>>
>> Which is a limitation that comes from a fixation on 32-bit architectures,
>> without a thought for 64-bit ones.
> 
> It is not an assumption about 32 bit architecture. 32 bit
> architecture limits it more than the Java rule.

But the Java rule is the limitation now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25900

On 07-02-2011 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4f5774$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> On 06-02-2011 21:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message<4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>>>>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32
>>>>>>>> bit architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double
>>>>>>>> and long".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in
>>>>>>>> the simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String,
>>>>>>>> Set, List etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is long?
>>>>
>>>> A simple data type.
>>>>
>>>> But it is still a characteristics of array not of long.
>>>
>>> Which is a limitation that comes from a fixation on 32-bit architectures,
>>> without a thought for 64-bit ones.
>>
>> It is not an assumption about 32 bit architecture. 32 bit
>> architecture limits it more than the Java rule.
>
> But the Java rule is the limitation now.

I think everybody agrees with that.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26141

On 06-02-2011 21:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4f5367$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
>>>>>> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and
>>>>>> long".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in
>>>>>> the simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String,
>>>>>> Set, List etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
>>>>
>>>> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.
>>>
>>> What is long?
>>
>> A simple data type.
>>
>> But it is still a characteristics of array not of long.
>
> Which is a limitation that comes from a fixation on 32-bit architectures,
> without a thought for 64-bit ones.

It is not an assumption about 32 bit architecture. 32 bit
architecture limits it more than the Java rule.

It is a bad assumption about memory availability in general.

Arne

have set the limit far lower than it is

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25723

On 06-02-2011 20:52, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<4d4f4d64$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
>>> Shanahan wrote:
>>>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
>>>> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and
>>>> long".
>>>>
>>>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in the
>>>> simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String, Set, List
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.
>>
>> But that has nothing to do with simple data types.
>
> What is long?

A simple data type.

But it is still a characteristics of array not of long.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25894

On 06-02-2011 18:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<b5GdnQ-xIKYHc9PQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Patricia
> Shanahan wrote:
>> I am aware of one issue in the simple data types that reflects 32 bit
>> architecture, JLS section 17.7, "Non-atomic Treatment of double and long".
>>
>> The big way in which Java is tied to 32 bit architectures is not in the
>> simple data types. It is the maximum size of an array, String, Set, List
>> etc.
>
> Also in the fact that array subscripts cannot be long.

But that has nothing to do with simple data types.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web