Java vs C++

[tholen]

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

138> I am not claiming to do so,

Classic contradiction:

"Everybody knows this."
--Sulfide Eater

138> tholenoid;

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

138> merely making a statement of fact
138> regarding a particular other fact being common knowledge,
trollen.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

138> You don't speak at all, thalidomide,

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

138> nor will you until your developer
138> decides to add a voice synthesis feature to your program,
tholenbot.

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

138> Though I can't imagine why he would, thallium

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

138> -- perhaps to turn you loose on an unsuspecting VOIP-using
populace,
138> trillium?

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

 

[tholen]

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

13> Well, I'll be -- Dull Murkytroll even programmed ye to lie,
tholenbot!

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

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Ah, I see. And the answer is, well…yes. That could happen in theory.
It happens in .NET too.

I notice I digressed unnecessarily by throwing in bare types.

Lew's claim was, that reifyability may even be bad. Then someone
asked, how reifyability could ever possibly hurt.

Then I *should* have said the following:
With reifyable types, lazy programmers might prefer to assign an
ArrayList<Foo<Bar,Snafu>> just to an Object variable at some point,
relying on reifyability for having any later cast properly checked.
But if something was wrong, those checks would only bomb at runtime!

You're free to choose not to accept arguments like "a lazy programmer
might ...". If so, then so be it. For me this subthread is closed.
Perhaps Lew picks up the ball himself and posts a better argument...

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

..., while I'd love to see someone try to get
a C-based i386 Win16 program to run on my shiny
ARM7 processor running

Not sure... dosemu? vmware? ... ;-)

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Windows is actually running on multiple platforms.

All but one of which are now defunct.

For obvious reasons it does not run on multiple OS'es.

I thought Windows WAS an OS.

Have you considered learning anything about the topics you talk about?

Have you?

Win32 API has a gazillion typdefs.

Which are tied to specific sizes like 16 and 32 bits.

Win64 API is the same as Win32 API just with a few different typedefs,
so what are you talking about????

The fact that it needs to exist.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

I guess I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make. Is your
goal to support or refute what Lew wrote?

It's amazing how something that - even on second reading - sounds
crystal clear to me, seems to be suahili to others...

Lets try a completely different parable: Safety nets.

Java already has a safety net: Even if I accidentally get an
ArrayList<String> instance into a List<Integer>-typed reference,
I won't crush into the ground ... ahem, won't be able to access
any of its non-null elements as Integers.

Reifyable generics would raise this net a notch higher, so falling
into it would be somewhat more comfortable - but that still doesn't
change the fact of "falling".

The ultimate goal is *not* falling into the net, rather than
falling more comfortably!

Does that mean that you are in agreement with Lew? If so, does that
mean you are unable to actually explain _why_ you agree with Lew?

I do hope, my point became clearer, now.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Unfortunately, no.

Then I give up. Sorry for all your unanswered questions.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Then I give up. Sorry for all your unanswered questions.

Well, not yet. Just one more line:
My point is, that the higher safety net may *discourage*
people from investing more brain into "not-falling."

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

And my point is, why is that a bad thing?

This is kind of an "axiom" for me, so I can't support it with
further arguments.

 

[Gabriel Arthur Petrie (eyenot)]

So, how do you all like my usenet troll bots?

!()#%* off, and let's never meet in person!

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

All but one of which are now defunct.

Which is not correct. x86, x86-64 and IA-64. And ARM on its way.

I thought Windows WAS an OS.

Yes. Single OS not multiple OS:

Have you?


Which are tied to specific sizes like 16 and 32 bits.

No - they can be changed if needed.

Exactly like POSIX.

The fact that it needs to exist.

Windows did the same thing as POSIX.

You change a few typedefs and then it is 64 bit.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

What's so dubious about that statement? Looks perfectly valid to me.
In case you saw a question-mark in his last line, that was a "smaller
or equal"-sign.

The whole discussion resolves quickly, when you distinguish two
separate points:
1) availability of a language on a platform
2) The actual effort of making a particular set of code
run on a particular platform once it fulfills "1)"

Obviously, Lawrence talks about "1)", while you (Arne) seem to
have "2)" in mind.

But #1 has nothing to do with portability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_portability

If we have a C++ app running on Windows using MFC, ATL and COM,
then considering that being portable to Linux because Linux has
C++ is absurd.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

That's funny, because by that definition, Java apps (and .NET and scripts)
would be entirely *unportable* - i.e., work only on that one "platform"

Stroustrup once said that Java is not cross-platform but instead it
is a platform itself.

And that is a bit funny.

But the practical impact is not that big.

You can move your jar file to Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOS X,
OpenVMS, z/OS and run it unchanged.

I do have the impression of a violent agreement here.
Lawrence perhaps sees the difference not all that large as many
others do, though.

Maybe not, but it is pretty easy to look at some of that C/C++ code
and see the ifdefs.

Depends on what libs you build upon in C (or C++).
Those libs likely have lots of #ifdef'ery inside,

1) That is relative rarely the case
2) It does not make the app portable - it just make the app
run on the platforms the lib is supporting

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Get real. They were using COBOL on Vaxen. Half of them still are.
Everybody knows this.

I doubt that everybody is so much wrong.

I guess you are more unique in that regards.

VAX'es were never that widely used client side.

And even though some did use COBOL on VAX'es, then
COBOL and PL/I on IBM mainframe was a lot more common.

Arne

 

[Esmond Pitt]

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.

The entire banking industry, for a start. But if this question is going
to come down to your personal experience of desktop operating systems it
retains zero interest.

 

[tholen]

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

1> !()#%* off, and let's never meet in person!

What does your aversion to Murgatroid have to do with OS/2, eyenot?

 

[tholen]

22> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.os2.advocacy

22> I doubt that everybody is so much wrong.

Sulfide Eater apparently thinks that Digital Equipment had the
entire finanical sector wrapped up. Must not do much shopping
either, else an IBM point of sale terminal would have been
encountered sooner or later.

22> I guess you are more unique in that regards.

Sulfide Eater is unique in other ways as well, but
his online persona certainly is not.

22> VAX'es were never that widely used client side.

VAXes were popular in scientific circles. Digital was one of
the leading suppliers of Fortran compiler technology.

22> And even though some did use COBOL on VAX'es, then
22> COBOL and PL/I on IBM mainframe was a lot more common.

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

 

[Sulfide Eater]

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

138> I am not claiming to do so,

Classic contradiction

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

138> merely making a statement of fact
138> regarding a particular other fact being common knowledge,
trollen.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

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

 

[Sulfide Eater]

Get real. They were using COBOL on Vaxen. Half of them still are.
Everybody knows this.

I doubt that everybody is so much [insult deleted].

The only one here who seems to be [insult deleted] is you, Vajhøj.

I guess you are more unique in that regards.

The only one here who seems to be [insult deleted] is you, Vajhøj.

VAX'es were never that widely used client side.

We were discussing what large financial companies run their number
crunching software on, Vajhøj. That is not "client side", Vajhøj.

 

[Sulfide Eater]

22> I doubt that everybody is so much wrong.

No, just Vajhøj.

Sulfide Eater apparently thinks that Digital Equipment had the
entire finanical sector wrapped up.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with OS/2,
tholenbot?

Must not do much shopping either

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with OS/2,
tholenator?

else an IBM point of sale terminal would have been
encountered sooner or later.

What do IBM point of sale terminals in stores have to do with the
identity of the manufacturer of the mainframes at a large financial
firm, thalidomide? As long as both ends support a common communications
protocol, they do not need to be the same, tholian.

22> I guess you are more unique in that regards.

Sulfide Eater is unique in other ways as well, but
his online persona certainly is not.

What does your agreement with Vajhøj's classic erroneous presupposition
have to do with OS/2, tholoon?

22> VAX'es were never that widely used client side.

VAXes were popular in scientific circles. Digital was one of
the leading suppliers of Fortran compiler technology.

What does that have to do with the mainframes at large financial firms,
thalien?

Trolls like Sulfide Eater

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with OS/2,
trollenbot?