How to convert .java file to exe file?

S

som

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
 
A

Andrew Thompson

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

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

Andrew T.
 
C

ChrisW

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.


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
 
I

Ian Wilson

som said:
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.*
 
R

RedGrittyBrick

ChrisW said:
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 :)
 
L

Lew

ChrisW said:
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
 
C

ChrisW

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...!
 
A

Alex Hunsley

Lew said:
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?
 
L

Lew

Alex said:
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
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=

Lew said:
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
 
L

Lew

Arne said:
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
 
A

Alex Hunsley

Lew said:
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
 
L

Lew

Alex said:
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! said:
Size of list versus size of string? Same syntax:

print len(string)
print len(list)

/ibid./

- Lew
 
A

Andrew Thompson

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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,009
Latest member
GidgetGamb

Latest Threads

Top