Wes Biggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Well, since gcj compiles Java to native anyway, I don't see the benefit
> > of native code. It might possibly be more efficent, but it is defintely
> > less portable. Why not write in Java and let gcj figure out the
> > portability problems for you?
>
> I agree. And also, it doesn't look like their implementation is any more or
> less native-code reliant than classpath.
Well, their distribution has a C language garbage collector included at
least. I haven't looked at it in much detail. Their libjava has to
contain at lot more than the standard classes. It has to contain the
entire standard Java runtime environment. That is, the JVM services
must also be included. This necessitates a lot of C code. The standard
Java class library itself should be mostly Java IMO.
--
Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
