From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: "James Giles" Subject: Re: Which language pays most 17457 -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1997/12/19 Message-ID: <67eu7p$j6j@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 308705246 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67comb$94o@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3498B5A6.C404C703@seasoned-software.com> <67dc5k$o02@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Peter Seebach wrote in message <67enk6$skq$11@darla.visi.com>... ... >Unix is the most reliable and stable thing you can get these days. >The competition is what, NT? MacOS? '95? Isn't it funny how times change? Back when UNIX was the *least* reliable and stable system for mainframes, minis, and high-end worstations it was promoted as being the de-facto standard that everyone had to switch to because all the Universities used it (they used it because, a decade before that, it was *free* - not because they thought it was any good). It's unreliability was dismissed as being less important than compatibility. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. ... > >>There's no excuse for this attitude >>today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that >>UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses. > >Uhm. I work in support, and we get angry calls if the system crashes. >Ever. We don't get compliments on reliability until over a year of >uptime on a small machine with thousands of users and a few hundred active >web pages. (BSDI 1.1, no less, which is a pretty old system by now.) The reliability of UNIX has improved over the last decade (though not its user interface). It is still less reliable than many systems that were developed for mainframes and minis *after* UNIX (in the late '70s and early '80s). And it is still fairly insecure. Finally, it's still less efficient, larger, and less powerful than many of those systems were. All those better systems are now in the waste tip, mainly because UNIX promoted compatibility as more important than any of those other attributes (even when it wasn't *really* all that widespread itself - the *claim* was made that it was the de-facto standard). As I said, the *perception* of reliability being relatively unimportant was originally a UNIX-ism no matter what you think today. -- J. Giles Ricercar Software