Re: An interesting quote on Java and C++

[munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com (Robert Munck)]

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:41:22 GMT, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A
Duff) wrote:

>...  But it's clear from the Java language documents that two
>goals of Java are (1) avoid security flaws, and (2) portability
>at the cost of efficiency.
>
>Ada meets neither of those goals.

And Java does?

I know little about language design for high-security systems,
so I'll leavel #1 for others.  On #2, it seems to me that Ada
has more effort invested in portability than any other language.
Little things like the Validation Suite.  Given that Ada95 can
be compiled to the JVM with the Intermetrics compiler, Ada must
be at least as portable as Java.  I guess that the part of #2
that Ada doesn't meet is "at the cost of efficiency."


>Consider, for example, that if X+Y overflows, Java
>gives the wrong answer, but always the same answer on all targets.

Not currently true, and I'd be willing to bet that it never
will be.  Java has horrible portability problems and they're
getting worse as JIT compilers begin to be used.  Why do you
think Sun is pushing so hard on "100% Pure Java(TM)?" They
know that the only prayer they have of any level of
portability is having all of the JVM implementations come
from one source.

In fact, there seems to be a race between the number of
portability flaws and the number of security flaws in Java.


>...  Java doesn't meet Ada's "strawman" goals,
>but of course it doesn't try to.  It has different goals.

Ok, which of Ada's goals, which Java doesn't even try
to meet, are undesirable for any language?  Code readibility?
Architecture consistency? The ability to write safety-
critical code?

Let's face it, the main goal of Java is to keep Sun
in business.

Bob Munck
Mill Creek Systems LC