14 Oct
2010
14 Oct
'10
11:43 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, R. Mattes wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:05:11 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil
wrote
The point is, Java is more portable, but not a lot more portable as it
claims to be (or used to claim to be). As a packager at Fedora I came
across many JNI based libraries, such as jjack (Java API for Jack),
libswt3 (I think this is a graphical toolkit). There are also Java
implementations (with JNI) of fluidsynth, portmidi. There is plenty of
other ones, but since I don't package those and since I am simply not
that much interested in, I can't tell them right out of my head.
Orcan
No need to play word games. I mean in C/C++ you
need to use #ifdef
__WIN32__ (or whatever) if you want your program to be portable. That
is what I mean by portable code. In contrast, Java world doesn't only
consist of classes and .jar files. Many operations (especially low
level ones, or those that need speed) are implemented in JNI, which
renders Java still C/C++ dependant, hence not easily portable.
Argh, conflicting information: what point do you want to make? Is
java more portable or not?
C++: In a world of bought components recompilation is not happening.
Java & JNI: the places I've been so far all had very strict rules of
_not_ using JNI because of it's unportability.
BTW, what _many operations_ in Java are implemented in JNI? Are you maybe
mixing up Java (the language) and the Java virtual machine?