>Alright. In order to gain a good understand of the issues that have
>arisen during the port of Java2 on Linux, I have read over the past
>messages regarding technical difficulties in the port.
You mostly quoted back my own speculation. Please understand, it was
only speculation - I have no knowledge of the JDK sources or the
details of the porting effort.
And please be careful when you ask questions like this - it's very
easy to sound like you're criticizing the porters, implying that it
shouldn't be this hard. I don't think you mean to do that, but please
be sensitive to it. The Blackdown folks are doing a terrific job.
Java2 has been painfully slow to be ported anywhere, Linux is further
along that most Unixes.
Anyway, my answer to your questions is "C code is not portable".
Posix, standard C libraries, standard X libraries - those don't mean
anything. If you've tried to write large portable C programs, you
understand this. Java pushes things harder than most projects because
it has a big graphics library, complicated memory management, and uses
threads. (The Linux kernel, by contrast, is simpler - it defines its
own execution environment!)
If you want to know more, definitely take a look at those diffs on
ftp.tux.org. That'll give you a good sense of the scope of the porting
effort.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . . . . . . . http://www.media.mit.edu/~nelson/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
