Java vs C++

Discussion in 'C++' started by Guest, Jul 17, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Java has packages (libraries) for everything. EVERYTHING.

    Instead, C++ is too poor in its classes.

    Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries, about
    multithreading, socket programming etc?

    I do not speak about libraries programmed only in one platform (e.g. MFC)
    but about standard C++ libraries.

    Is there a plan to add in C++ those capabilities in the future?

    Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?
    Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?


    Regards
    Paul Gessos
    Guest, Jul 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    stephan beal Guest

    - Chameleon - wrote:
    > Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries, about
    > multithreading, socket programming etc?


    www.boost.org

    --
    ----- stephan beal
    Registered Linux User #71917 http://counter.li.org
    I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may
    be hot. Slippery when wet. Reading disclaimers makes
    you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been Warned.
    stephan beal, Jul 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Mike Smith Guest

    <- Chameleon -> wrote:

    > Java has packages (libraries) for everything. EVERYTHING.
    >
    > Instead, C++ is too poor in its classes.
    >
    > Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries, about
    > multithreading, socket programming etc?
    >
    > I do not speak about libraries programmed only in one platform (e.g. MFC)
    > but about standard C++ libraries.
    >
    > Is there a plan to add in C++ those capabilities in the future?
    >
    > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?
    > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?


    Because in C++-land, standard really means *standard*; i.e. those
    features which are available to *all* platforms that can run C++. Not
    all C++-capable platforms have TCP/IP stacks, for instance. Or
    threading capability, or graphics displays, etc. therefore these things
    are considered nonstandard. That doesn't mean, of course, that you
    can't *have* graphics, or sockets, or threads, but only by using
    third-party libraries that are not part of the standard language itself.

    --
    Mike Smith
    Mike Smith, Jul 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Guest

    Socketd Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:06:09 +0300
    "<- Chameleon ->" <> wrote:

    > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?
    > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?


    www.wxwindows.org

    br
    socketd
    Socketd, Jul 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    > > Java has packages (libraries) for everything. EVERYTHING.
    > >
    > > Instead, C++ is too poor in its classes.
    > >
    > > Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries, about
    > > multithreading, socket programming etc?
    > >
    > > I do not speak about libraries programmed only in one platform (e.g.

    MFC)
    > > but about standard C++ libraries.
    > >
    > > Is there a plan to add in C++ those capabilities in the future?
    > >
    > > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?
    > > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?

    >
    > Because in C++-land, standard really means *standard*; i.e. those
    > features which are available to *all* platforms that can run C++. Not
    > all C++-capable platforms have TCP/IP stacks, for instance. Or
    > threading capability, or graphics displays, etc. therefore these things
    > are considered nonstandard. That doesn't mean, of course, that you
    > can't *have* graphics, or sockets, or threads, but only by using
    > third-party libraries that are not part of the standard language itself.


    there is a logic...
    but of course this logic decreases too much abilities of C++ (I speak always
    for cross-platform developments)
    I mean: In how many machines Java is not working?
    And what is the problem if my C++ program says in Unix or DOS console: "This
    program requires graphical interface"?

    All the machine unsuported functions can return an error message. (such as
    fopen() returns 0)

    do you agree?

    Regards
    Paul Gessos
    Guest, Jul 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    >
    > > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?
    > > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?

    >
    > www.wxwindows.org


    very usefull! Thanks!
    Guest, Jul 18, 2003
    #6
  7. > multithreading, socket programming etc?
    If you want free and cross-platform, look at the Adaptive
    Communications library. It supports both multithreading and network
    programming, as well as IPC, shared memory, filesystem access, dynamic
    module loading, and XML parsing. For the GUI bit, use wxwindows if you
    want something free and Qt if you are willing to pay.

    > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?

    You don't. You just need to spend some time looking for libraries
    appropriate to your application and researching the best ones to use.
    The fact that stuff like ACE is available should be common knowledge
    to C++ programmers. If it isn't for you, Google is always there to
    bail you out.
    Rayiner Hashem, Jul 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Troll Alert: Java vs C++

    Paul Gessos wrote:

    > Java has packages (libraries) for everything. EVERYTHING.
    >
    > Instead, C++ is too poor in its classes.


    There are hundreds of times as many C++ classes.

    > Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries,
    > about multithreading, socket programming etc?


    There is *no* Java standard.
    There are *no* standard Java libraries.

    > I do not speak about libraries programmed only in one platform (e.g. MFC)
    > but about standard C++ libraries.


    Then don't speak about the Java libraries.
    They won't port to anything that doesn't implement JVM.

    > Is there a plan to add in C++ those capabilities in the future?


    I hope not.
    C++ compiler developers are *not* generally the best library developers.

    > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?


    Because there is no reason why sockets should be included
    in the C++ standard library.

    > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?


    I agree that there should be standard library APIs
    which include C++ language bindings for sockets
    and all of the other objects that you find in the Java library.
    But these standards have nothing to do
    with the ANSI/ISO C++ language standards
    and should be specified separately.

    Why don't you propose a standard API (ADT plus C++ language binding)
    for a socket library? If you can get people interested, you may want
    to visit the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) web site:

    http://www.ansi.org/

    and investigate Standards Activities to find out how to work through
    the standards approval process.
    E. Robert Tisdale, Jul 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Troll Alert: Java vs C++

    Are you a C++ theologian - dogmatist?
    Everyone which ask new ideas is troll?

    > > Is there a concept to extend C++ with other standard libraries,
    > > about multithreading, socket programming etc?

    >
    > There is *no* Java standard.
    > There are *no* standard Java libraries.


    > > I do not speak about libraries programmed only in one platform (e.g.

    MFC)
    > > but about standard C++ libraries.

    >
    > Then don't speak about the Java libraries.
    > They won't port to anything that doesn't implement JVM.
    >
    > > Is there a plan to add in C++ those capabilities in the future?

    >
    > I hope not.
    > C++ compiler developers are *not* generally the best library developers.
    >
    > > Why we not use standard C++ for e.g. socket programming?

    >
    > Because there is no reason why sockets should be included
    > in the C++ standard library.
    >
    > > Why we must move to Java for a non-platform specific program?

    >
    > I agree that there should be standard library APIs
    > which include C++ language bindings for sockets
    > and all of the other objects that you find in the Java library.
    > But these standards have nothing to do
    > with the ANSI/ISO C++ language standards
    > and should be specified separately.
    >
    > Why don't you propose a standard API (ADT plus C++ language binding)
    > for a socket library? If you can get people interested, you may want
    > to visit the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) web site:
    >
    > http://www.ansi.org/
    >
    > and investigate Standards Activities to find out how to work through
    > the standards approval process.


    A standard API for a socket library, a managing windows library etc...

    You are correct
    I agree with you
    Thanks!

    Regards
    Paul Gessos
    Guest, Jul 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Guest

    Mike Smith Guest

    <- Chameleon -> wrote:
    >
    > there is a logic...
    > but of course this logic decreases too much abilities of C++ (I speak always
    > for cross-platform developments)
    > I mean: In how many machines Java is not working?


    I don't know exactly, but the number is greater for Java than for C++,
    I'll bet.

    Compare that to the question: How much work and cost is required to
    create a C++ implementation for a platform, versus a Java implementation?

    > And what is the problem if my C++ program says in Unix or DOS console: "This
    > program requires graphical interface"?
    >
    > All the machine unsuported functions can return an error message. (such as
    > fopen() returns 0)
    >
    > do you agree?


    It's not a question of whether I agree, but of whether the C++ standards
    bodies agree, and apparently, they don't.

    --
    Mike Smith
    Mike Smith, Jul 22, 2003
    #10
    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. Novice
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,148
    Mike Schilling
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Michael Kintner
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    847
    Michael Kintner
    Nov 30, 2003
  3. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    571
    Ilias Lazaridis
    Feb 1, 2005
  4. manish sahu
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,003
  5. Isaac
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    373
    Isaac
    Jan 20, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page