Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:04:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se> To: perlsta@sunyit.edu (Alfred Perlstein) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: generic compiling programming language? Message-ID: <199708102004.WAA16384@ocean.campus.luth.se> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970809111436.5667C-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu> from Alfred Perlstein at "Aug 9, 97 11:19:14 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Alfred Perlstein: > > I know C is 'portable' but it still requires some major hacking to get > programs working on various OSes, and Java can be used/compiled almost > everywhere, although i think it requires a graphical display (right?) > and it is pretty slow and not a good choice for many intesive > applications. Java doesn't require a graphical display unless you use it for graphical stuff, but that's no different from any other language. :-) The java standard specifies the length of a "long" or "float", etc, which is one of the things where C/C++ gets stuck in porting. It does a lot of other things better too, but there are good and bad sides to most things... > Why isn't there a "Java" that is not interpreted? but could be easily > cross compiled for any machine? > > Or is everyone hiding something from me? :) There are plenty of compilers out there which compile java to native binary instead of bytecode, as far as I know. And java is not interpreted, it's just emulated on all platforms. :-) Actually, not true, because there are java CPU's out there (if I heard correctly), which ofcourse would run java's bytcode native, and therefor not need to emulate the JVM. You really seem to be looking for something right under your own nose. Java. All you need is a really good compiler which can give you native code, my guess is that java will meet your speed needs. /Mikael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708102004.WAA16384>