On 11/14/06, ljknews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:31 PM +1100 11/13/06, mikeiscool wrote: > > On 11/13/06, Glenn and Mary Everhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> If there is some construct that NEEDS to be interpreted to gain something, > >> it > >> can be justified on that basis. Using interpretive runtimes just to link > >> languages, or just to achieve portability when source code portability runs > >> pretty well thanks, seems wasteful to me. > > > > You think source code portability is good enough such that runtime > > portability isn't really needed? > > Anything beyond source code portability tempts the customer into use on > a platform where the developer has not tested.
But it has been tested, because if it runs on that jvm it has been tested for that JVM. a JVM version x on linux is the same as a JVM version x on windows. That's the point. Now maybe they try running it with a version x - 5 JVM, well fine, it may not work, but the response would be: "duh". > -- > Larry Kilgallen -- mic _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
