On Tuesday 14 November 2006 13:28, Crispin Cowan wrote:
It means that compromising performance
It's not necessarily a given that runtime performance is compromised. There
are situations where Java is faster than C (I've tested this on trivial
things). I'm sure there are situations where the
Robin Sheat wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 13:28, Crispin Cowan wrote:
It means that compromising performance
It's not necessarily a given that runtime performance is compromised. There
are situations where Java is faster than C (I've tested this on trivial
things).
Here it
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Al Eridani wrote:
On 11/9/06, Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prior to Java, resorting to compiling to byte code (e.g. P-code back in
the Pascal days) was considered a lame kludge because the language
developers couldn't be bothered to write a real compiler.
On 11/13/06, Glenn and Mary Everhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Al Eridani wrote:
On 11/9/06, Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prior to Java, resorting to compiling to byte code (e.g. P-code back in
the Pascal days) was considered a lame kludge because the
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
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
On 11/14/06, Leichter, Jerry [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
mikeiscool wrote:
On 11/14/06, Leichter, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The joke we used to make was: The promise of Java was Write once,
run everywhere. What we found was Write once, debug everywhere.
Then came the Swing patches, which would cause old bugs to re-appear,
or suddenly
Al Eridani wrote:
On 11/9/06, Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prior to Java, resorting to compiling to byte code (e.g. P-code back in
the Pascal days) was considered a lame kludge because the language
developers couldn't be bothered to write a real compiler.
Post-Java,
And then there's write once, run anywhere. Yeah ... right. I've run
Java applets, and Javascript applets, and the latter are vastly superior
for performance, and worse, all too often the Java applets are not run
anywhere, they only run on very specific JVM implementations.
You really can't
On 11/9/06, Crispin Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prior to Java, resorting to compiling to byte code (e.g. P-code back in
the Pascal days) was considered a lame kludge because the language
developers couldn't be bothered to write a real compiler.
Post-Java, resorting to compiling to machine
On 11/9/06, SZALAY Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 10:20 +1100, mikeiscool wrote:
You can definately get appropriate information via the stack trace
with java's exception handling. It's strange to see you say debugging
is _eaiser_ in c, typically people
Hi Al,
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 08:47 -0500, ljknews wrote:
I think you are mixing the issue of Java vs. C* with the issue of
interpreters vs compiled languages.
Yes, you are totally right. Sorry.
But I have not seen java or c# compiler.
___
Secure
ljknews wrote:
At 4:18 PM +0100 11/9/06, SZALAY Attila wrote:
Hi Al,
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 08:47 -0500, ljknews wrote:
I think you are mixing the issue of Java vs. C* with the issue of
interpreters vs compiled languages.
I agree with LJ: language issues aside, I detest
Hi All!
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:23 +1100, mikeiscool wrote:
Hold the phone ... What debugging problems? What _specific_ speed
issues? I'd be really surprised if your project couldn't be resolved
with java; what specific problems are you facing? What tests have you
run/consider to show that
On 11/8/06, SZALAY Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All!
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:23 +1100, mikeiscool wrote:
Hold the phone ... What debugging problems? What _specific_ speed
issues? I'd be really surprised if your project couldn't be resolved
with java; what specific problems are
for cross-platform C# there is the mono project which do a great jpb of porting the .NET framework to the Linux world, check it out at : http://www.mono-project.com/further perl or python (which are more or less cross-platform) might also be used for your rewrite project, all depends one your
On 11/6/06, SZALAY Attila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All!
I read this thread and I little be afraid. I'm just ahead of a complete
rewriting of my program. The previous code was written in pure C (with
an OOP looks-like somewhere).
This program should run on Linux, freebsd and windows
I read this thread and I little be afraid. I'm just ahead of a
complete rewriting of my program. The previous code was written in
pure C (with an OOP looks-like somewhere).
Perhaps I'm missing something. Why do you have to abandon C? You
mention C++, C#, and Java, but no other languages;
At 10:47 AM -0500 11/6/06, der Mouse wrote:
I read this thread and I little be afraid. I'm just ahead of a
complete rewriting of my program. The previous code was written in
pure C (with an OOP looks-like somewhere).
Perhaps I'm missing something. Why do you have to abandon C? You
20 matches
Mail list logo
