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 proj
-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 Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:34:47PM +0100, 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)
Primarily Classpath NIO bugs.
--
Matthew
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]
http://news.gm
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 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 probl
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 wor
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:22:51PM -0400, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> On 26 May 2004 at 9:47, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 funct
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:37:04PM -0700, 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
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 byte
I suggest a puppy chasing it's tail.
>
> Oh, you know that when I get a bit of free time, that's the next change
I'm
> going to make to the freenet systray app... (of course, maybe a limping
> rabbit, rather than a running one)
>
> d
___
Support mai
> In this case, because the result's performance sucks? Anyway, the
> code to stick the little bunny in the system tray on Windows is a
> system-specific case. And it's probably messier to do system specific
> crap like that from Java than using native code. By the way, making
> the icon a leaping
On 26 May 2004 at 9:47, Phillip Hutchings wrote:
>
> 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
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 ha
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 woul
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 impleme
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 (c
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 consta
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 code changes that do seem to be "a shot in the dark"
There i
18 matches
Mail list logo
