How to convert .java file to exe file?

Discussion in 'Java' started by som, Feb 14, 2007.

  1. som

    som Guest

    Hello everyone,

    Can anyone tell me the way to convert java files to standard exe
    file.Please help me in this, Its pretty urgent.

    som
     
    som, Feb 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 14.02.2007 13:14 som wrote:
    > Hello everyone,
    >
    > Can anyone tell me the way to convert java files to standard exe
    > file.Please help me in this, Its pretty urgent.


    Check this out.

    http://tinyurl.com/2ve8xh

    Very helpful
     
    Thomas Kellerer, Feb 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Feb 14, 11:14 pm, "som" <> wrote:
    ....
    > Can anyone tell me the way to convert java files to standard exe
    > file.


    Why? Why dould you want to turn an x-plat
    binary into a plaform specific .exe? Why
    code using Java if you only need to support
    Windows?

    Why not use the deployment technology
    made and supported by Sun, which works
    x-plat? That deployment tech. is
    Java web start, or JWS. There are
    some examples here.
    <http://www.physci.org/jws/>

    >..Please help me in this, Its pretty urgent.


    You will have my undivided attention,
    as soon as your cheque clears.

    Andrew T.
     
    Andrew Thompson, Feb 14, 2007
    #3
  4. som

    ChrisW Guest

    On Feb 14, 12:58 pm, "Andrew Thompson" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 14, 11:14 pm, "som" <> wrote:
    > ...
    >
    > > Can anyone tell me the way to convert java files to standard exe
    > > file.

    >
    > Why? Why dould you want to turn an x-plat
    > binary into a plaform specific .exe? Why
    > code using Java if you only need to support
    > Windows?
    >
    > Why not use the deployment technology
    > made and supported by Sun, which works
    > x-plat? That deployment tech. is
    > Java web start, or JWS. There are
    > some examples here.
    > <http://www.physci.org/jws/>
    >
    > >..Please help me in this, Its pretty urgent.

    >
    > You will have my undivided attention,
    > as soon as your cheque clears.
    >
    > Andrew T.


    I would expect most people who use a programming language for
    scientific computing (and not for software development) do not
    actually think in advance what platforms their program might be used
    on. I actually dislike Java (although mainly because I don't
    understand it! After 18 months of using it on/off I still don't
    understand classes and write everything procedurally. I think Python
    is a much more usable language, although this is off-topic...) and the
    only reason I am using it now is because my boss has told me to. I
    highly doubt any programs I write will ever be used on anything but
    Windows - it isn't the portability between different platforms that's
    important to my boss, it's just having a standard programming language
    that is used in the department.

    Chris
     
    ChrisW, Feb 14, 2007
    #4
  5. som

    Ian Wilson Guest

    som wrote:
    > Hello everyone,
    >
    > Can anyone tell me the way to convert java files to standard exe
    > file.Please help me in this, Its pretty urgent.
    >


    http://www.excelsior-usa.com/articles/java-to-exe.html

    The above sets out all the options quite clearly. Excelsior sell an
    Ahead of Time Java compiler and so are not exactly impartial but the
    article seems to me to be reasonably comprehensive and fair.


    Converting Java to EXE is a frequently asked question so you'll find
    plenty of useful information by using Google Groups to search
    comp.lang.java.*
     
    Ian Wilson, Feb 14, 2007
    #5
  6. ChrisW wrote:
    > I actually dislike Java ... and write everything procedurally.


    Perhaps the former flows from the latter. You might dislike any OO
    language if you forced yourself to write procedurally in it?

    > the only reason I am using it now is because my boss has told me to.


    I'm guessing he didn't ask you to write procedural code in an OO language.

    Maybe you need a new boss as much as your boss needs a new developer :)
     
    RedGrittyBrick, Feb 14, 2007
    #6
  7. som

    Lew Guest

    ChrisW wrote:
    > I actually dislike Java (although mainly because I don't
    > understand it! After 18 months of using it on/off I still don't
    > understand classes and write everything procedurally. I think Python
    > is a much more usable language, although this is off-topic...) and the
    > only reason I am using it now is because my boss has told me to.


    The part you say is troublesome for you is the part that is pretty much
    standard for all object-oriented (O-O) languages. As others have said
    elsewhere, an O-O language doesn't necessarily solve all problems as well, and
    Java in particular has weak areas, but for the areas where full-bore O-O
    suits, nothing like Python or Ruby is going to satisfy.

    It is hard; that's why they pay us the big guilders. But someone with the
    huevos to handle it is far better at the art of programming thereby.

    Like many challenging activities, mastering O-O is rewarding, both emotionally
    and financially. It is worth it, and if you stay with only familiar solutions
    you risk becoming obsolete.

    - Lew
     
    Lew, Feb 14, 2007
    #7
  8. som

    ChrisW Guest

    > Perhaps the former flows from the latter. You might dislike any OO
    > language if you forced yourself to write procedurally in it?


    > I'm guessing he didn't ask you to write procedural code in an OO language.


    He actually doesn't mind - I'm not a software engineer / developer, I
    do scientific computing (my background is environmental chemistry!) -
    I only use programming as a tool, I don't do it all day every day - I
    think he'll be pleased if things end up being OO, but until I have
    time to learn it / understand it / find someone who can explain it to
    me in a way I understand (which no-one, or no books, have yet been
    able to) then I'm afraid everything will have to be procedural :)

    On that note, if anyone does know of any excellent books / online
    resources I'd be grateful; I've been told that Java in Easy Steps is
    extremely good (and better than the O'Reilly and Wrox books which I've
    currently got, both of which advise that having a background knowledge
    of C++ (which I haven't!) will help). If not (or as well as), when I
    do get round to learning OOP you might have to put up with me asking
    some very stupid / basic questions...!
     
    ChrisW, Feb 15, 2007
    #8
  9. som

    Alex Hunsley Guest

    Lew wrote:
    > ChrisW wrote:
    >> I actually dislike Java (although mainly because I don't
    >> understand it! After 18 months of using it on/off I still don't
    >> understand classes and write everything procedurally. I think Python
    >> is a much more usable language, although this is off-topic...) and the
    >> only reason I am using it now is because my boss has told me to.

    >
    > The part you say is troublesome for you is the part that is pretty much
    > standard for all object-oriented (O-O) languages. As others have said
    > elsewhere, an O-O language doesn't necessarily solve all problems as
    > well, and Java in particular has weak areas, but for the areas where
    > full-bore O-O suits, nothing like Python or Ruby is going to satisfy.


    Just out of curiosity, why do you think Python (for example) wouldn't
    satisfy?
     
    Alex Hunsley, Feb 15, 2007
    #9
  10. som

    Lew Guest

    Lew wrote:
    >> where full-bore O-O suits, nothing like Python or Ruby is going to
    >> satisfy.


    Alex Hunsley wrote:
    > Just out of curiosity, why do you think Python (for example) wouldn't
    > satisfy?


    Actually, maybe it would. I was basing my comment on comments others have
    made, and likely was unfair to Python.

    My impression is that the so-called "scripting" languages are less good about
    things like compile-time elimination of bugs, developing larger components,
    more thorough exception- and error-handling mechanisms and other mechanisms of
    the "big-iron" languages like C++, C#, Java or Smalltalk.

    Perhaps Python is an exception.

    - Lew
     
    Lew, Feb 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Lew wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >>> where full-bore O-O suits, nothing like Python or Ruby is going to
    >>> satisfy.

    >
    > Alex Hunsley wrote:
    >> Just out of curiosity, why do you think Python (for example) wouldn't
    >> satisfy?

    >
    > Actually, maybe it would. I was basing my comment on comments others
    > have made, and likely was unfair to Python.
    >
    > My impression is that the so-called "scripting" languages are less good
    > about things like compile-time elimination of bugs, developing larger
    > components, more thorough exception- and error-handling mechanisms and
    > other mechanisms of the "big-iron" languages like C++, C#, Java or
    > Smalltalk.


    If it is purely about the OO aspect then both Python and
    Ruby are OO.

    But there are several other aspects where Python and Ruby are
    a different type of language than Java.

    Arne
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=, Feb 16, 2007
    #11
  12. som

    Lew Guest

    Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > If it is purely about the OO aspect then both Python and
    > Ruby are OO.
    >
    > But there are several other aspects where Python and Ruby are
    > a different type of language than Java.


    I see the difference to do more with static vs. dynamic typing than O-O vs.
    not. Java, C++/# and others have a heavy compilation stage that allows for all
    kinds of industrial-strength idioms. This is not to advocate such idioms per
    se, but to characterize a difference.

    When compile-time checks and scaffolds of inheritance and composition are what
    you want, then the "big" languages tend to offer benefit. These are the
    aspects that I call "full-bore" - contractor-scale machinery. Looser webbing
    has its place, too.

    A salesman tried to get a farmer to buy a tractor. The farmer replied that he
    needed the money to buy a cow. "You'll look pretty silly riding a cow around
    to mow your fields," the salesman urged. "Look sillier milking a tractor," the
    farmer rejoined.

    - Lew
     
    Lew, Feb 16, 2007
    #12
  13. som

    Alex Hunsley Guest

    Lew wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >>> where full-bore O-O suits, nothing like Python or Ruby is going to
    >>> satisfy.

    >
    > Alex Hunsley wrote:
    >> Just out of curiosity, why do you think Python (for example) wouldn't
    >> satisfy?

    >
    > Actually, maybe it would. I was basing my comment on comments others
    > have made, and likely was unfair to Python.


    I was just curious to know what impressions you had about Python. When I
    started looking at Python a while back, initially my reaction was,
    "uurgh! dynamic/loose typing! What? You don't declare interfaces?" and
    things like that. What I soon came to realise is that there is a
    Pythonic way to do things, a mindset, along with Python and the
    community. And one of those ways is to put tests in place with good
    coverage. But yes, you'll catch less problems at compile time with
    dynamic typing...
    There are some things about Python I love. I love the fact you can do
    away with getters and setters, allowing direct access to members, which
    is ok in the vast majority of cases. In the remaining cases, you use the
    fact that writing "a = chicken.beak" in Python calls a getter that is
    implicit, which you can override (so you don't break any existing code).
    (Although exposing the members directly does involve breaking
    encapsulation and reveals some implementation detail...!)

    I also love how compact and cohesive the language is. Want a substring?
    Want a list slice? It's the same format for both:

    string = "This is a string, hello my world"
    substring = string[1:10]

    list = [2, 6, 4, 7, 8, 3]
    subList = list[2:4]

    Size of list versus size of string? Same syntax:

    print len(string)
    print len(list)


    This all said and done, when I think "OO" with big capital 'O's, I do
    usually think of Java first.
    But Python's pretty hard to beat for fast prototyping and getting
    something functioning in not much time.


    > My impression is that the so-called "scripting" languages are less good
    > about things like compile-time elimination of bugs, developing larger
    > components, more thorough exception- and error-handling mechanisms and
    > other mechanisms of the "big-iron" languages like C++, C#, Java or
    > Smalltalk.


    I know what you mean... although I often think people underestimate
    Python as well.
    I would never consider doing a large, OO heavy project in Perl. But
    Python would be much more of a contender.

    lex
     
    Alex Hunsley, Feb 16, 2007
    #13
  14. som

    Lew Guest

    Alex Hunsley wrote:
    > There are some things about Python I love. I love the fact you can do
    > away with getters and setters, allowing direct access to members, which
    > is ok in the vast majority of cases.


    public class Exposed
    {
    public int kount;
    public String name;
    }

    Wherever did you get the notion that Java doesn't permit that?

    > In the remaining cases, you use the fact that writing "a = chicken.beak" in Python calls a getter that is
    > implicit, which you can override (so you don't break any existing code).


    That is usual among scripting languages. JSP EL, for example, requires that
    member access be mediated through accessors/mutators, but gives the notational
    convenience of direct attribute references.

    > (Although exposing the members directly does involve breaking
    > encapsulation and reveals some implementation detail...!)


    Which is why, though it is a choice, it isn't often the best choice.

    > I also love how compact and cohesive the language is. Want a substring?
    > Want a list slice? It's the same format for both:
    >
    > string = "This is a string, hello my world"
    > substring = string[1:10]
    >
    > list = [2, 6, 4, 7, 8, 3]
    > subList = list[2:4]


    À chacun son goût.
    ("Ah! Chaka [Khan] is some goat!" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaka_Khan>)

    > Size of list versus size of string? Same syntax:
    >
    > print len(string)
    > print len(list)


    /ibid./

    - Lew
     
    Lew, Feb 16, 2007
    #14
  15. On Feb 16, 3:00 pm, Lew <> wrote:
    ....
    > A salesman tried to get a farmer to buy a tractor. The farmer replied that he
    > needed the money to buy a cow. "You'll look pretty silly riding a cow around
    > to mow your fields," the salesman urged. "Look sillier milking a tractor," the
    > farmer rejoined.


    LOL! I have actually 'milked' a tractor.

    Mind you, I needed the diesel. ;-)

    Andrew T.
     
    Andrew Thompson, Feb 16, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ola
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    719
    Marco Schmidt
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. sriraj
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    675
    Roedy Green
    Oct 18, 2005
  3. davidb
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,047
    davidb
    Aug 30, 2006
  4. Eric CHAO

    convert python scripts to exe file

    Eric CHAO, Feb 25, 2007, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    622
    Larry Bates
    Feb 26, 2007
  5. G
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    3,143
Loading...

Share This Page