Re: Reference-oriented language and high-integrity software

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Peter Amey schrieb:
> 
> 
> Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>
>> And last but not least, how does the JB's statement stand in front of 
>> things like RealTime Java or even HIJA (High-Integrity Java)?
>>
> 
> The answer to this one is, I think, a bit easier.  Neither RealTime Java 
> nor HIJA can reasonably be described as Java.  The last time I looked, 
> both required special compilers; were designed to produce native machine 
> code not an interpreted J code; allocated objects on the stack rather 
> than heap; and had no garbage collection.  The restrictions mean that 
> you cannot use any of the standard libraries and don't get platform 
> portable code; the two primary attraction of Java in the first place. 
> What you do have is two new languages that just happen to have a 
> Java-like syntax.  The modifications required to give these new 
> languages their real-time and high integrity credentials are precisely 
> aligned with John Barnes's objections to them.

So the only advantage they have is the use of a Marketing-Buzz-Word - or 
better the combination of two of them ("Java" + XXX).

Martin