In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Roedy Green
<see_website@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:12:10 GMT
<cuvg4456mk148n2aeu31ujee9g2pan8cqq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:28:56 +0200, Jacek Wojciechowski
> <jacekwojciechowski1WYTNIJTO@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote, quoted or indirectly
> quoted someone who said :
>
>>> Microsoft has worked very hard to stop Java from getting a foot in the
>>> door. It succeeded with Applets, but failed with servers.
>>
>>Well, it's interesting. Could you say something more about it?
>>
>>--
>
> An example, is IE 8 beta, which won't run Java unless you
> hit a bar at the top of the page to run the "dangerous" content.
Feh. How dangerous is an applet? Signed applets might be
a worry, but the garden-variety ones can't even contemplate
getting out of their sandbox, let alone actually doing it.
(Of course there's some issues regarding the ActiveX
control embedding the JVM; defects there might be construed
as bugs, and there's been a couple.)
>
> There is this crap about Object and Embed tags.
I've always found that rather interesting. It's now
enshrined in the HTML 4.0 specification as well, and
<APPLET> is officially deprecated therein.
I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, really; the <OBJECT>
tag is more general. A pity Microsoft badly botched the
implementation so that one has to specify a ridiculously
non-intuitive clsid= rather than something simpler and
more elegant.
And yes, I consider <EMBED> a botch, too.
Thank you, Microsoft. </sarcasm>
>
> Then there is refusal to ****p with Java pre-installed.
>
> There is their incompatible Java whose primary function appeared to be
> to tarnish the Java name.
They were in the midst of extending Java (after "embracing"
it), when someone caught them at it...and they of course
mi***tended it. I forget most of the details now but they
did have a "delegate" keyword, for example -- naughty.
>
> Then there is their ****pping a defective Java in IE for many years
> after it was obsolete.
Not defective, just very very ancient -- 1.1.7, I think.
Hopefully that's fixed in IE8, now that Sun and Microsoft
have kissed and made up.
Hopefully.
>
> C# could be looked on as a Java rip off.
>
C# is mildly interesting and has promise, but Java has
a huge head start and is more straightforward in many
spots (with the possible exception of getX() and setX()
getter/setter functions -- which in C# is more stringently
checked).
Also, I think Java has a better dynamic optimizer.
--
#191, ewill3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
