Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I find Java's memory requirements to be totally
unreasonable, its performance lackluster, and I've
finally come to the conclusion that it was indeed a
poor choice of language in which to implement a project
of this size and complexity.
As far as I see it, freenet is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 27 May 2004 00:34, Dave wrote:
Just for an update on this, bouncing the thread appropriately for
devl: What are the current outstanding issues with GCJ compatibility
(or, for that matter, Kaffe/Blackdown/IBM java compatibility)
IBM's
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:15:25AM +0200, Garb wrote:
Conrad Sabatier wrote:
I find Java's memory requirements to be totally
unreasonable, its performance lackluster, and I've
finally come to the conclusion that it was indeed a
poor choice of language in which to implement a project
of
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:39:34PM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:51:20 -0400, Jay Oliveri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Fred takes too much CPU and RAM because it's written in Java.
I hate this depate.
It's true that object orienting uses up (a few) more bytes than
Toad wrote:
JIT Java (which we're all running) is also very speedy, there's only a few
rare instances where it's worth the trouble to replace code with something
natively instead.
Debatable. But most of the problems with Java come from the fact that it
is non-free IMHO. If and when freenet
Just for an update on this, bouncing the thread appropriately for devl:
What are the current outstanding issues with GCJ compatibility (or, for that
matter, Kaffe/Blackdown/IBM java compatibility)
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 25 May 2004 06:36 am, Robert Greenage wrote:
This appears to be a major blow to the development of freenet.Conrad is a
major force behind the whole project.Without him I don't see any other
developer capable of stepping up and filling the void. He has a good
point with the constant
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:51:20 -0400, Jay Oliveri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Fred takes too much CPU and RAM because it's written in Java.
I hate this depate.
It's true that object orienting uses up (a few) more bytes than non-OO
programming, but that's trivial compared to the structuring you
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Ian Clarke wrote:
That is a shame. Clearly I don't agree with your reasoning, there is no
evidence that any other language would not have similar or worse issues
(consider the amount of time we would spend dealing with memory leaks
and array overflows had we
On 25 May 2004 at 13:37, Christopher Brian Jack wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Ian Clarke wrote:
That is a shame. Clearly I don't agree with your reasoning, there is no
evidence that any other language would not have similar or worse issues
(consider the amount of time we would spend
On 26/05/2004, at 9:36 AM, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
... rather than just having one, platform
dependent #idfef-filled source file with the appropriate functions
duplicated for all the different supported platforms.
That's the perfect reason to use Java! It may not be the nicest code,
but you only
That is a shame. Clearly I don't agree with your reasoning, there is no
evidence that any other language would not have similar or worse issues
(consider the amount of time we would spend dealing with memory leaks
and array overflows had we implemented in C++). As for focus, our
experimental
12 matches
Mail list logo
