> > --- Timm Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The developers have taken great pains to keep > > Freenet compatible with the > > Java 1.1 API in order to maintain comatability with > > Kaffe (except in the few > > cases where Kaffe does offer Java 2 classes). > > Regardless, I am not very optimistic about seeing > Kaffe get up to speed anytime soon.. Certainly not > for sparc/netbsd.. and I don't see anyone else > putting out a JVM for that platform anytime soon.
No arguments here. > > > > > I have a hard time seeing how something like > > > the freenet project can say with a straight face > > that > > > it's done in java so that it's cross platform. > > > Read Ian's orginal paper on the Freenet web site. > > Java was mostly used > > because it makes development easier, not because of > > being cross platform. > > After all, this is a Free Software project. In Free > > Software, there is no > > real gain in having the binaries being cross > > platform, since the source can > > always be recompiled for a new platform. > > > > Well heck, why not write it in visual basic? I hear > that's really easy. Considering that all but one of > the JVMs are covered by proprietary licenses anyway. Well, if Java isn't cross platform, than VB *definatly* isn't cross platform :) In any case, Java is a great language for doing referance implementations and network-centric programs, both of which describe Freenet pretty well. > > > > > java is horrible and I hate it very much. I'm not > > a developer. > > > > You may not like it as a user, but as a developer, > > Java is a dream to use > > compared to C++ (just don't get Travis up on the > > benfits of Ocmal, or we'll > > never hear the end of it). Keep in mind that > > Freenet is still highly under > > development, so we want to make things easier on the > > developers NOW and worry > > about being easier on users LATER. > > Although I've heard the opposite from plenty of > developers, I can see a point in this much. I don't > expect to persuade anyone to do a rewrite in C anytime > soon. There is a C++ version of Freenet called "Whiterose", but its development is on hold for now. Freenet is a fast-moving target right now, and trying to maintain two impementations would only slow things down. > I just hope that maybe some people out there > are at least thinking about it. I'd love to run a node > but as long as it's written in java I probably won't > want to bother with it. Why don't you help out trying to get things working under GCJ? _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
