Java vs C++

[tholen]

127> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

127> Nor does the market share of the Edsel, trollium.

Who is "trollium", Eater? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

127> Non sequitur;

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

127> to whom are you referring, tholenator?

Case in point.

127> There is nobody in
127> this newsgroup who "can't even keep attributions straight",
thingamabob.

Who is "thingamabob", Eater? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

It is more portable than any Java code you can point to. QED.

Right. So one of the main J2EE apps I have helped maintain for a few
years, about 500 KLOC of Java that interfaces with databases, SAP,
message queues, the file system, other J2EE apps like FileNet, that can
have its EAR deployed (with tiny changes to some configuration files) to
any of Windows, Mac OS X, Linux or Solaris with zero code changes and no
OS dependencies in the code, what you're saying is that I could
translate all that into C and not worry about what OS I'm writing it for?

Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

Portable is epitomized (not exclusively so) by JVM-based languages and
..NET/CLR-based languages. C is on the other end of that spectrum, dude.
To use another example, I can write C#.NET and run it without code
changes on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris, using Mono. _That_ is
code portability, not the GNU Build System. The latter attempts
(often/usually successfully) to compensate for _not_ having code
portability by making the _build_ portable. Serious difference.

AHS

 

[Sulfide Eater]

127> Non sequitur;

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, tholenbot.

127> to whom are you referring, tholenator?

Case in point.

Non sequitur.

 

[tholen]

128> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

128> On your part, tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Eater? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

128> Non sequitur.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim
have to do with OS/2, Eater?

 

[Sulfide Eater]

128> Non sequitur.

classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim

On your part, tholenoid.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Windows 95 used it, ditto 98, and every version of NT. Ditto NetWare 4.

95/98/NT did not run on 286'es.

The 386 may be identical to 286 for the features described, but the CPU
mentioned was 286.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

In some niche area. The fact remains that its market share does not hold
a candle to that of even OS X, let alone Linux or Windows.

Today.

OS/2 was pretty widely used once.

And since Esmond did use past tense, then the past seems
more relevant than the current.

Arne

 

[Sulfide Eater]

Today.

OS/2 was pretty widely used once.

Where, in West Rectum, Rajikistan? I can't recall ever stumbling upon a
single person using it as their desktop OS even during its so-called
heyday. Maybe the odd dedicated-function terminal, like an ATM or a cash
register, was running it under the hood. Nothing normal people do their
web browsing, word processing, and gaming on, though, that I ever ran
across.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

The "problem" about type-erasure is over-rated.

Suppose, an instance created so: Object o = new ArrayList<String>();
actually "knew" that it was an ArrayList of Strings (and not just
that it was an ArrayList, as it does now).
Then you would get a *runtime*-Error, if you tried to cast "o" to
ArrayList<Integer>, later. But generics aren't about runtime errors.
They are about being able to prevent some runtime-errors, by turning
them into compile-time errors. So, giving *still runtime*-errors for
casting between generic types of incompatible parametrizations is only
little win over giving runtime-errors on element-use.

There are other reasons to not have type erasure.

new T

general reflection

method overload

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm very glad you made that point. I am glad we have type erasure in
Java. It forces you to deal with type assertions at compile time.

The problem with reifiable types is that it's too easy to do a
half-assed job of your type analysis, thus resulting in the runtime
errors to which Andreas alludes. Besides, all you need to do to get
runtime typing is to include a runtime type token as a final member of
your class and Bob's your uncle. Like so much else in Java, that just
means you have to *think* and act for yourself, and type a few extra
lines of code. Don't sprain your finger with that extra typing, whiners!

Can you give an example of where introduction of reifiable type
would cause not getting a compile time error but a runtime error
instead?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Where, in West Rectum, Rajikistan? I can't recall ever stumbling upon a
single person using it as their desktop OS even during its so-called
heyday. Maybe the odd dedicated-function terminal, like an ATM or a cash
register, was running it under the hood. Nothing normal people do their
web browsing, word processing, and gaming on, though, that I ever ran
across.

I don't know about who you know.

OS/2 was used by many large organizations in both the private
and the public sector.

Arne

 

[Sulfide Eater]

OS/2 was used by many large organizations in both the private
and the public sector.

I'm more interested in client-side. Who among the general public ever
used it much?

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I'm more interested in client-side. Who among the general public ever
used it much?

This was client side - desktop computers.

Arne

 

[Sulfide Eater]

This was client side

You said "used by many large corporations", rather than by individuals
on their personal computers.

I am asking who actually used it. Having 3 adopters all of which were
large organizations is still having 3 adopters and a tiny sliver of
market share.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

You said "used by many large corporations", rather than by individuals
on their personal computers.

The computers on the employees desktops are client side.

Personally owned computers were not that common in those times.

I am asking who actually used it. Having 3 adopters all of which were
large organizations is still having 3 adopters and a tiny sliver of
market share.

It is a lot more than 3.

Arne

 

[Sulfide Eater]

It is a lot more than 3.

Wow, was it 6? Maybe even 10? Maybe even as many as 100? Out of what,
millions?

 

[Sulfide Eater]

On your part, tholenbot.

Oh joy, [implied insult deleted].

Not.

 

[tholen]

129> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

129> On your part, tholenoid.

Who is "tholenoid", Eater? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

130> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

130> Where, in West Rectum, Rajikistan? I can't recall ever stumbling
upon a
130> single person using it as their desktop OS even during its so-
called
130> heyday.

Suffering from memory problems, Eater?

130> Maybe the odd dedicated-function terminal, like an ATM or a cash
130> register, was running it under the hood. Nothing normal people do
their
130> web browsing, word processing, and gaming on, though, that I ever
ran
130> across.

Don't get out much, eh Eater?

131> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

131> I'm more interested in client-side. Who among the general public
ever
131> used it much?

I have, Eater.

132> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

132> You said "used by many large corporations", rather than by
individuals
132> on their personal computers.

Large corporations are client-side users, Eater.

132> I am asking who actually used it. Having 3 adopters all of which
were
132> large organizations is still having 3 adopters and a tiny sliver
of
132> market share.

Irrelevant, given that there were far more than 3 adopters, Eater.

133> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

133> Wow, was it 6?

No, Eater.

133> Maybe even 10?

Not even, Eater.

133> Maybe even as many as 100?

Even more, Eater.

133> Out of what, millions?

Now you're getting warm, Eater.

134> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,rec.games.roguelike.development

134> Not.

What does your negation have to do with OS/2, Eater?

 

[tholen]

1> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,rec.games.roguelike.development

1> Oh joy, a new thread to killfile.

What does your joy have to do with OS/2, narf?

 

[tholen]

17> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

17> Today.

17> OS/2 was pretty widely used once.

17> And since Esmond did use past tense, then the past seems
17> more relevant than the current.

Trolls like Sulfide Eater never let the facts get in the way
of a good rant, Arne.

18> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

18> I don't know about who you know.

18> OS/2 was used by many large organizations in both the private
18> and the public sector.

Trolls like Sulfide Eater never let the facts get in the way
of a good rant, Arne.

19> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

19> This was client side - desktop computers.

Trolls like Sulfide Eater never let the facts get in the way
of a good rant, Arne.

20> Newsgroups:
comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.text.tex

20> The computers on the employees desktops are client side.

20> Personally owned computers were not that common in those times.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

20> It is a lot more than 3.

Trolls like Sulfide Eater never let the facts get in the way
of a good rant, Arne.