× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: RE: "Client Access" for Linux
  • From: "Stone, Brad V (TC)" <bvstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:51:04 -0600

> Hello Brad,
> 
> You wrote:
> >"Our application uses Java, which is 100% portable*."
> 
> The statement is true provided the JVM implementation is good 
> and that the Java 
> developers haven't done stupid things like use JNI or use 
> VisualJ++.  

That's what I said.  I was trying to say that 100% portable always comes
with an "IF".  You said that as well.  But when advertising for Java
products, these IFs are left out.  That's all I was trying to say.  I am not
saying Java sucks, which is what it seems everyone thinks I'm saying.

> >* Java portability depends on the JVM installed on your 
> machine.  It also
> >only applies to applications, not servlets, beans or applets.  
> 
> All of the above Java programs are equally portable.  The 
> problem is again in the JVM 
> implementation (for Applets) or developer's choices (for 
> Applications, Servlets, and 
> Beans).  Java at least minimises the pain of porting unlike 
> e-RPG which can't be ported 
> at all.

No.  Servlets are not.  Because a lot of web servers require addons to run
them (http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/industry.html) I would not call
them portable in the sense that applications are portable.  Semantics, I
know, but still true.  Most people still think JavaScript is Java.

> 
> >So, chances are since we wrote this for M$, it will only 
> work on M$ just like if we had
> >programmed this in VB exclusivly for M$, except it will run slower.  
> 
> A comparable Java application is unlikely run slower than VB 
> unless you are using the 
> Micros~1 JVM.  It is likely to run slower than C (or its 
> incremental derivative) but the 
> benefit IS better portability.

Excuses excuses.  :)

I work on an AS/400.  Why would I want to port anything anyway?
(Rhetorical).

Brad  
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.