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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #25543 > 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> - 2011-02-11 11:40 +1300
    Re: Java vs C++ Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-02-10 21:56 -0400

#25543 — Re: Java vs C++

In message <JBk4p.101614$ZS4.35831@newsfe07.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 11-02-07 11:06 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<4d50949a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 
>>> Real C apps that will run predictable on any platform is
>>> pretty rare.
>>
>> Really?? We have them coming out our ears. I have thousands of them
>> installed on my system alone. Let’s see, the Linux kernel, 15 million
>> lines of source code, almost entirely in C, portable across about two
>> dozen different major processor architectures. GCC, Apache, Python,
>> Blender (a million lines of C, plus about 220 thousand lines of C++),
>> Gimp ... the list goes on and on.
>>
> You've got a very optimistic definition of "portable" happening there.
> It may come as a surprise to you, but all sorts of #ifdefs and
> platform-specific configure scripts and makefiles don't mean that you've
> got portable code - all of that is a response to the fact that you've
> got _non-portable_ code.

It is more portable than any Java code you can point to. QED.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26079

On 11-02-10 06:40 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<JBk4p.101614$ZS4.35831@newsfe07.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>> On 11-02-07 11:06 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<4d50949a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>>> Real C apps that will run predictable on any platform is
>>>> pretty rare.
>>>
>>> Really?? We have them coming out our ears. I have thousands of them
>>> installed on my system alone. Let’s see, the Linux kernel, 15 million
>>> lines of source code, almost entirely in C, portable across about two
>>> dozen different major processor architectures. GCC, Apache, Python,
>>> Blender (a million lines of C, plus about 220 thousand lines of C++),
>>> Gimp ... the list goes on and on.
>>>
>> You've got a very optimistic definition of "portable" happening there.
>> It may come as a surprise to you, but all sorts of #ifdefs and
>> platform-specific configure scripts and makefiles don't mean that you've
>> got portable code - all of that is a response to the fact that you've
>> got _non-portable_ code.
>
> It is more portable than any Java code you can point to. QED.

Right. So one of the main J2EE apps I have helped maintain for a few 
years, about 500 KLOC of Java that interfaces with databases, SAP, 
message queues, the file system, other J2EE apps like FileNet, that can 
have its EAR deployed (with tiny changes to some configuration files) to 
any of Windows, Mac OS X, Linux or Solaris with zero code changes and no 
OS dependencies in the code, what you're saying is that I could 
translate all that into C and not worry about what OS I'm writing it for?

Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

Portable is epitomized (not exclusively so) by JVM-based languages and 
.NET/CLR-based languages. C is on the other end of that spectrum, dude. 
To use another example, I can write C#.NET and run it without code 
changes on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris, using Mono. _That_ is 
code portability, not the GNU Build System. The latter attempts 
(often/usually successfully) to compensate for _not_ having code 
portability by making the _build_ portable. Serious difference.

AHS

-- 
We must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era - a 
permanent state of what I call violent peace.
-- James D. Watkins

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web