From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Aug 9 11:43:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07270 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (garbanzo@pm3-ppp8.well.com [206.15.85.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07249 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA00279; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: zippy.dyn.ml.org: garbanzo owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: Alfred Perlstein cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: generic compiling programming language? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > 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 GUI, unless you use the AWT (Abstracting Windows Toolkit). The JDK itself does require a fair amount of hacking to get compiled on non Solaris systems, but most of those oses have ports that have been worked on, and polished, however Java is slow, very slow. > Why isn't there a "Java" that is not interpreted? but could be easily > cross compiled for any machine? The closest to that is Netscape's JavaScript scripting for its browsers, not nearly as powerful as Java, not sure how they compare speedwise. - alex