>>At 9:37 pm +0000 18/1/99, Simon Cooke wrote: >>>Oh, and it's Windows only. >>>(Sorry Andrew)
>>Do you know - I once heard a scurrilous rumour that Java was >cross-platform... >Not if you're writing WFC code - which lets you write Windows code >direct, and has lots of optimisation for the Windows system libraries. It's not exactly Java then, is it. >Basically, it lets you get near C++ performance from Java code. Why has noone written a Java compiler? Not a JIT, but a real compiler which will produce executables. You can optimise that as much as you like for a particular system and there's no need to change the language. For any other platform without that compiler, you can still distribute bytecode as before. >Disadvantage: WFC is Windows only. If you don't care about uniplatformularity, and you want C++ performance why not just write C++? Look, I don't have an obsessive dislike of Microsoft. I even use Internet Explorer myself, because it's better than Netscape. Microsoft recently seem to have hired a few people who actually know something about MacOS... But this steamrollering of Java is something which does bug me quite a bit. When it gets to the point when programmers think absolutely nothing of writing single platform code, then the entire point of Java, its raison d'etre, is totally nullified. Keeping the name Java implies some attempt at cross platform compatability - what a joke. Now it's just one step away from being yet another acquisition for the Win32 platform. Anyway we're way off-topic here... comp.lang.java.advocacy? Andrew -- | Andrew Collier | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Talk sense to a | Part 2 NatSci | http://carou.sel.cam.ac.uk/ | fool and he +----------------+-----------------------------+ calls you foolish | Selwyn College Student Computer Support Team | -- Euripides
