Re: C to JVM, time to revive JGNAT?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:09:24 +0200, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> No, but the biggest challenge in portability is the relatively small 
>>> (when compared to, say, Java) standard library.
>>> For example, write a web browser in Ada (net+gui+crypto+...) and let me 
>>> know how much portable it is.
>> 
>> It is a difficult question. You cannot pack everything into libraries for
>> obvious reasons. I can imagine a system without GUI, but it is difficult to
>> do for numeric things. Then, when you say NET, I'd ask which one? Can I
>> have field buses, multicast protocols, time-triggered protocols in Java?
>> The next question about non-functional requirements. What can be said about
>> rendering performance of that portable browser, how many numeric operations
>> will be required for encrypting 1MB, etc?
> 
> These are all valid point, but the logic is fuzzy anyway.
> For example, C, C++ and Ada support the concept of std{in|out|err} 
> channels and their standard libraries contain appropriate stuff for 
> this. But if we think about it, there are many platforms where the 
> standard IO channels do not exist at all (most embedded boxes, I guess, 
> and even "some" GUI environments as well), but the support for stdio is 
> in the standard anyway. What's even more intersting is that there are 
> probably more environments which support TCP/IP than those which support 
> stdio (think "embedded boxes") - still, it's stdio which gets attention 
> of standard committees, not TCP/IP.

Yes, in XXI century TCP/IP is much more important than Text_IO.

> There are obviously many factors that shaped this, but the final result 
> is that most interesting applications are not portable.

Yes. Because the platform is quite often a sufficient part of interest.

> Java may not 
> have standard support for field buses or time-triggered protocols, but 
> neither has C, C++ nor Ada. The point is not in what nobody has, but in 
> what they do have - with increased portability of final software - and 
> we don't.

I agree, but it is rather a problem of Ada's image. I doubt that Java is
more portable in strict sense [=man years required to fulfill the
requirements on some new platform], but it definitely *appears* more
portable. Which, as experience shows, is far more important than whether it
really is.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de