Java portability (was "Client Access" for Linux)

[Buck Calabro <buck.calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brad Stone wrote:

>Why don't they tell you that when they say "Java is 
>portable"?  It's convieniently left out.
>
>So, it should be..
>
>"Our application uses Java, which is 100% portable*."
>
>* Java portability depends on the JVM installed on your 
>machine.  It also...

-snip-

I can't run a V4R5 RPG program on V2R1
I can't run a Win 95 program on Win 3.1
I can't look at V6 Quick Time clips with a V4 Quick Time plug-in
I need the latest Macromedia plug-in to see the latest Flash graphics

Why should I expect to run a Java 2 applet on a Java 1 JVM when nothing else
in the computer world works that way?  I thought that "portability" meant
that any Java 2 binaries would run on any Java 2 JVM, no matter what
hardware platform.  I'm comparing this to C's portability, where the
binaries are not compatible, but the source code generally is.  I'm
apparently missing something about the meaning of "portable."   Won't be the
first time I missed something apparently obvious!

Buck Calabro
Aptis; Albany, NY
"Nothing is so firmly believed as
 that which we least know" -- Michel Montaigne
Visit the Midrange archives at http://www.midrange.com
+---
| 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
+---