Tahir Hashmi wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 Manish Jethani wrote:
Tahir Hashmi wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 19:41:50 +0530 Manish Jethani wrote:
of C/C++'s "unspecified", "undefined" (nasal demons) and "implementation-defined" things have well-defined equivalents in Java.
Use a compiler from just one vendor and use it for just one
Just one vendor?!! Now you've started misguiding people, man!
Do all Java compilers implement the specifications as they are?
They ought to. Jikes seems to be a good example.
Don't specifications change with versions?
With major versions, yes. They better. Backwards compatibility is kept in mind.
Are all JVMs alike? Of
Implementation, by definition, will likely be different. Interfaces, be alike.
VJ++ and Microsoft's JVM bundled with WinXP creating some issues.
Even IE has created some issues. But people have not stopped programming for the Web, have they?
Yes, because that's what I'd essentially do with Java too. I'd write Java code and it ties users down to a Java Virtual Machine.
It doesn't tie users down to a particular vendor's Java Virtual Machine. You've been missing this point all along.
BTW, I heard about something called "GNU Autotools". They are what enable GNU to provide portability to their software across a wide range of platforms, without much ado. And I won't buy the
You know how to use GNU Autotools, power to you! After all, someone has to write that next revolutionary JVM! :)
Manish