Java is much easier to use and learn than c++ and i believe is a better
language. I leaned java in a very short time. Java is slow if compiled
to bytecode but can be compiled to system native code useing some tools
but i have only seen this on windows <- I may be wrong on that.
I have seen a visual basic copy called instant basic which was made in
java and i am impressed. It runs and makes standalones for any platform
and is pretty much an exact copy of VB apart from that.
We could use java but C++ is better known and faster.
Decide: do you want speed and after heaps of porting work cross platform
or in java slightly slower and instant cross platform.
Julian blackhirst
Adrian Sutton wrote:
>
> > No one here speaks much of Java; not certain I care to develop with it either,
> > but its successful presence on the web may have changed the way Microsoft and
> > Apple are thinking in how they plan to tear down barriers between platforms.
> > While in Redding, on business, a Windows tech introduced me to the idea when
> > Windows 2000 will be a mix of Java-code and HTML, and when introduced, that
> > Microsoft would no longer be supporting DOS. Seeing Windows 98 display PC
> > directories primarily on web browser pages got me listening to what the guy
> > was saying. And the implications. If System 7-8 is going to be left behind
> > in three years, (assume MacOSX appears within 18 months, who's using System 6
> > these days?) why spend all the time and money developing for an OS that will
> > be obsolete, especially if Microsoft is moving away from DOS toward Java.
>
> This is something I am very interested in. By developing in C++ we
> make cross-platform OpenCard more difficult to create. By
> developing in Java cross-platform OpenCard is immediate, not to
> mention web OpenCard. Java tends to be slower than C++ though,
> this is mainly due to Java being partially compiled and then
> interpreted. I am told however, that it is possible to completely
> compile Java for specific platforms (still starting with the same
> code though) thus increasing execution time.
>
> > So, I'm really beginning to wonder whether it's possible that it makes more
> > sense to make QTi's interactive layer Java-based rather than HyperCard or even
> > AppleScript when considering planning for the future. I noticed Apple
> > recently released QuickTime for Java; need to learn more what that's for. For
> > now, I'm still using HyperCard. I guess if I ever want to port something to
> > Windows, I need to talk to Broderbund or Red Orb or one of those guys...
> > they're the ones who ported Myst and Riven to Windows, respectively.
>
> Java is not programming for the rest of us. It is far more difficult to
> learn than xTalk. For this reason, I think it would be better to stick
> with xTalk.
>
> Adrian Sutton.
