Re: [Clockwork-developers] Java, anyone?

[Shawn M. <smc...@ei...>]

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:41:08PM -0500, Joel Loudermilk said:
>=20
> One of the drawbacks of Java is that you can't really depend on a version
> of the JRE to be installed on a target system. But we could simply package
> the software with an acceptable JRE for each platform (which is what
> commercial vendors do with Java and with Perl). It would even be possible
> to make a version of the software that comes without a JRE for folks who
> don't want another one.

I don't like the idea of packaging a JRE, they're huge, but if you don't
you find that Java is not write-once run-anywhere, not even nearly so.
It's beaten by a country mile by perl, python, and probably half a dozen
others I don't know about.

However, with the GNU Compiler, we could produce compiled native Java
applications, on every target platform.  This would actually be easier
than finding a JRE for all the target platforms and keeping it
synchronized when we need new features.

Of course, if you're going to go there, why do Java in the first place,
unless all your coders are best at it?

I vote for whatever language you and Brian are best at coding.  The
whole point to the cross-platform ability of Java is lost until they
define a standard and stick to it, and they are years away from that
presently, if they even get there at all without turning it over to a
standards body.


--=20
Shawn McMahon            | Emacs: It's a nice OS, but to compete with
AIM work: spmcmahonfedex | Linux or Windows it needs a better text
AIM home: smcmahoneiv    | editor. - Alexander Duscheleit