John W. Kennedy wrote:
Peter Kupfer wrote:
Sorry to be a little confused by this controversy, but what is wrong
with using Java in OOo? People seem to be very upset about this? Isn't
Java just a flavor of C with more rules?
As far as I know, the only controversy is over open-source purity. There
is no completely competent open-source implementation of Java, and Sun,
although it gives away Java for free, does not wish to make their Java
code fully open-source. (Their argument on this is that Java's greatest
strength is its strict system-independent definition, and that a fork
could entirely destroy its usefulness.)
Java is a member of the greater C family, but it resembles Objective C
more than C or C++. The chief characteristics of the Java language
proper are:
all elementary types are precisely defined as to bit layout and
operator semantics,
all non-elementary types are objects with the possibility of
polymorphic methods,
objects have single inheritance, but with limited imitation of
multiple inheritance via defined interfaces, and by the fact
that there is a root Object type, and
Java libraries have a universal namespace convention based on
Internet domains.
Execution of Java is normally via a virtual machine, though it is
possible to compile it to architectures that are close to the Java
Virtual Machine architecture (which most modern systems are).
The Java Standard library is /not/ similar to either the C or C++
library. It is distinguished by the fact that it contains, defined in a
system-independent way, just about every function that is common to
modern operating systems.
Thanks.
--
Peter Kupfer -- Using OOo since 'OO4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
