In Article: 11283 of comp.std.c++, Jim Fleming burbles:
 > In the case of Borland C++ almost killed them, Delphi will be their
> only hope at this point.

Several things almost killed Borland - buggy compilers, bad marketing,
uncompetitive applications software and Microsoft being some - but
nothing about C++ itself that wouldn't have affected any other vendor
just as badly. Are you suggesting that they might have fared better by
*ignoring* C++? If they had done so they'd simply have lost share in
the tools market.

> [Meaningless opinion/drivel re Sun & AT&T deleted]

> My e-mail shows that I have more supporters than detractors. People like
> you are not used to the "net". You are used to plugging your agendas in
> the SIGs publications which are three to four months out of date when
> they hit your desk.

No, your mail shows that more supporters than detractors have sent
you mail. And I suspect that most people reading this group have a
better understanding of 'the net' than you do and will recognise you
for what you are - an irritating embarrasment, one of the many cranks
that usenet endures, and that mailing you would be pointless.

> [Arrogant, paranoid drivel deleted]

You may add me to your detractor count. Now go away and get a life.

Brian

--
Brian Syme, Software Engineer, Conic Systems Ltd.
bsyme@cix.compulink.co.uk, +44 (0)141 552 8473

avh@acorn.Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur van Hoff) wrote:
>I am *completely* amazed by this conversation! Do you actually believe
>that Perl is easier to learn (and understand) then a C-like language?
>Are there really more people that understand Perl than there are those
>that program C. Wow! Where do they live?

My house, among other places.  You aren't going to tell me C's 'printf' is more
intuitive than Perl's 'print', are you?  Sure, Perl has plenty of obscure
commands, tricks and twiddles, but you don't have to learn most of them to get
real work done (though you do to get efficient work done).

Incidently, I'm not out to sell Perl to anyone.  Use what you like.  I'm just a
little peaved at being considered a freak for having an easier time with Perl
than with C.

>By the way, Java is easy to learn, compact and interpreted and has a
>small runtime environment. What was your point?

Hmmmm, I smell a Sun employee talking here :)

I'll probably break down and learn Java at some point (like, as soon as I can
get my hands on a release copy for Win16, Win32, or Linux).  I think Java will
be great for WWW browser type things, but I'm not about to throw out my copy of
Perl for it, and I really doubt it'll achieve Perl's functionality for some
time now (number of platforms, text-processing power, etc).  Personally, I hope
Perl achieves Java's functionality before then (cross-platform GUI, Perl5 for
DOS and Mac).  But hey, the more tools, the better.
--
Rob Lanphier
robla@eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla

In article <3ok0an$u34@nsgate.envisionet.net> cjames@cec-services.com (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:
>In <3ojo5g$g1k@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, raney@psych.colorado.edu wrote
>this with possible deletions.
>>
>>Wrong.  Probably 0.01% of the population knows C. Worse, the majority
>>of prospective developers of WWW content are GA/Tech Pubs types who
>>will *never* bother learn as cryptic a language as C/C++.  Sun made a
>>monumental strategic error in deriving their language from C++ instead
>>of something approachable by people who are not professional
>>programmers.  They should have used a language like Basic, Tcl or a
>>scripting language like HyperTalk or Lingo.
>>
>>Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
>>Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
>>distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
>>(and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
>>Java has *none* of these characteristics.
>>
>
>I concur.

I am *completely* amazed by this conversation! Do you actually believe
that Perl is easier to learn (and understand) then a C-like language?
Are there really more people that understand Perl than there are those
that program C. Wow! Where do they live?

By the way, Java is easy to learn, compact and interpreted and has a
small runtime environment. What was your point?

Have fun,

 Arhtur van Hoff

In article <3omufd$b6e@kaleka.seanet.com> atkinson@atkinson.seanet.com (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>In article <CARROLL.95May7135144@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>,
>carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu says...
>
>[a bunch of stuff that implies that the "am I willing to run this code
>out there on the Internet on my machine" problem is is somehow related to
>the problem of preventing dangling pointers in a program]
>
>Sorry, but I don't get this.
>

It's not so much dangling pointers as it is preventing the program
from writing over memory it should be touching. Many security
attacks have centered on tricking an internet server into accepting
a large buffer of stuff that overruns its internal buffers. Once
you've done that, you can overwrite the return address in the stack
to trick the server into running your code (which is part of the
big buffer you sent the server). This approach has been used
on fingerd, httpd, etc.

With java all memory accesses are checked so this kind of thing
couldn't happen.

>First, it's not necessary: this same thing can be accomplished by running
>the code in a separate process on a machine with a real operating system.
>

See above.

>Second, it's not at sufficient. Before I'll run the code on my computer,
>I sure want to know that it won't mess with data I don't want it to.
>

Yes, it's not sufficient. If you read the security paper in
http://java.sun.com/ you'll find other security layers that sit on top
of the basic language security.

>Java is way cool in some ways. In particular, among other things it's a
>pretty nice job of a dynamically translating interpreter that performs
>pretty well in a small space.
>
>But does it at all in any way help the security issue in a fundamental
>way? Sorry, but I just don't see that. Maybe someone could explain it to
>me...
>
> Bob
> Microsoft
>


--sami

avh@acorn.Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur van Hoff) writes:

>In article <3ok0an$u34@nsgate.envisionet.net> cjames@cec-services.com (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd)) writes:
>>In <3ojo5g$g1k@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, raney@psych.colorado.edu wrote
>>this with possible deletions.
>>>
>>>Wrong.  Probably 0.01% of the population knows C. Worse, the majority
>>>of prospective developers of WWW content are GA/Tech Pubs types who
>>>will *never* bother learn as cryptic a language as C/C++.  Sun made a
>>>monumental strategic error in deriving their language from C++ instead
>>>of something approachable by people who are not professional
>>>programmers.  They should have used a language like Basic, Tcl or a
>>>scripting language like HyperTalk or Lingo.
>>>
>>>Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
>>>Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
>>>distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
>>>(and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
>>>Java has *none* of these characteristics.
>>>
>>
>>I concur.

>I am *completely* amazed by this conversation! Do you actually believe
>that Perl is easier to learn (and understand) then a C-like language?

No, but that's not what I said.  What I said is that HyperTalk and
Lingo are easier to learn and understand.  Basic and Tcl probably are
too, but the difference isn't as great.

Perl is an example of a VHLL language which is a more *productive*
tool than a 3rd and a half generation language like C++ or Java.

>Are there really more people that understand Perl than there are those
>that program C. Wow! Where do they live?

That's not what I said either.  The more appropriate comparison is
between users of VB/VB for Applications, HyperTalk, AppleScript,
etc. vs. C programmers.  The former outnumber the latter by an order
of magnitude in the general population, and several orders of
magnitude in the market (GA/Tech Pubs) that HotJava is targeting.

>By the way, Java is easy to learn, compact and interpreted and has a
>small runtime environment. What was your point?

It *isn't* easy to learn, and at least from looking at the alpha, I
wouldn't describe the runtime environment as small.  For example, it's
more than twice the size of a product like MetaCard which offers
greater functionality yet is much easier to learn (since it uses the
same language as HyperCard).

>Have fun,

> Arhtur van Hoff

Bob Atkinson (atkinson@atkinson.seanet.com) wrote:
[ snip quote about how Java interpreter helps security ]

: First, it's not necessary: this same thing can be accomplished by running
: the code in a separate process on a machine with a real operating system.

True, but it is not nice to start a Web page with
"All of you Bozos running MacOS or Windows must update to some
real OS before reading this..."

: Second, it's not at sufficient. Before I'll run the code on my computer,
: I sure want to know that it won't mess with data I don't want it to.

The code you will be running is the *interpreter* that you have
installed in your machine. The Java code that came over the net is
the *data* for that code. If you can trust your interpreter ( it
might only allow acces to files within one special subdirectory, for
example ) I don't see how anything that comes over the net can
mess things up. Of course, I am not claiming that the java interpreter
can be trusted - I haven't taken a good look at it yet.

[ snip again ]

-- Jecel Mattos de Assumpcao Jr
   Laboratorio de Sistemas Integraveis - University of Sao Paulo - Brazil
   jecel@lsi.usp.br

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:

> Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
> to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???

Good question.  Perhpas the answer can be found in the fact that Sun only
began to offer a C compiler than enforced ANSI C function prototyping in
C a year and a half ago.  Sun makes some great hardware, but man, are they
ever confused on languages.




--

Cay Horstmann (horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu) wrote:

> : Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???
> : Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???

> Looks to me that Sun and Borland are doing the smart thing--they use C++
> when it is strong and they use other tools when they are more effective.
> Shareholders aren't going to object to that.

> Now I dunno how the shareholders of UNIR CORPORATION feel about their
> CTO wasting his time making enemies on the net...

> Cay

Not to worry.  UNIR is a defunct corporation and Jim is evidently using
their name unlawfully.
--

Jim Kownacki:

   > Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
   > to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???

   Good question.  Perhpas the answer can be found in [...]

the white paper that comes with the java documentation. i have no idea
what answer mr fleming expects, and what he hopes to extract from it.

oz

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
In article <3nnbpq$ma5@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:


Jim> Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to
Jim> allow users to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and
Jim> DO NOT USE C++ ???

Could it be... *GASP*... because WWW applets have different
requirements?

Applets is the Sun term for programs that work in webpages. The
language that it used to implement applets has to meet some unusual
security requirements.

When you write a program in C, C++, C+@, Objective-C, Ada, Pascal,
Modula-3, or any of the other "standard" programming languages, you're
writing it under the assumption that the person who uses that program
is aware of it, and has considered the security risks associated with
that application. You further assume that if the security risk is too
great, it is the responsibility of the user to either accept that
risk, take measures to alleviate that risk, or not run your program.
Programs written in those languages don't get executed on a system
without being put there and executed by the owner/user/administrator
of that system.

With Applets, they get automatically loaded when you access the
containing web page, *without* the permission of the
owner/administrator of the system, and sometimes even without their
knowledge. Without some kind of security measures, those programs,
when run on a system like MSDOS without OS security, can conceivable
trash any file anywhere on the system. Even on Unix, if they exploit
one of the many security holes, they can do immense damage.

So the language that is used to write Applets has to be different from
the languages used to write other applications. You have to have some
way of ensuring that executables generated for the language don't have
the capability of violating security.

None of the C derived languages on the market can meet that
requirement - casts and pointers to data and functions can allow
programs to violate the "contract" of a safe program, thus making it
possible to violate security.

So you need to restrict the language in ways sufficient to ensure
security. That means cutting off access to unrestricted memory
pointers, removing pointer subscripting, removing unchecked casts --
essentially removing any feature that makes it impossible for the
compiler to ensure safety. Once you'e removed all of that from most
C-family languages, you've pretty well crippled them. So you need to
extend them in ways that replace the crucial unsafe features with safe
alternatives. So you add safe arrays and references. Enhance the type
system to allow the flexibility that you got from casts with something
typesafe. Build a module system to replace the unreliable #include.
Add garbage collection, since it's become terribly hard to manage
memory manually. Do all of that, and what you get will look an awful
lot like Java.

The only remaining question is: why do you want to start with C++ as
the basis? And the answer to that is twofold:

(1) Everyone knows C. If you use a language based on C, then 90% of the
  syntax will be readable by the majority of your perspective users. The
  fact that they don't need to learn to read and write a whole new syntax
  makes the language seem much more approachable to new users.

(2) Object-orientation is darned useful. Especially for the application
  they had in mind.

So, you want to start with an object-oriented variation on C. That
means that really, there are two choices: Objective-C, and
C++. Objective-C has a lot fewer users, and would be harder to make
type-safe than C++. SO you start with C++.

Makes perfect sense, neh?

Jim> Why is it that when Borland needs an Object Oriented language for
Jim> their new flagship product line, Delphi, they DO NOT USE C++ ???

Could it be because the company got started on Pascal, and so people
inside really like working with it? Or perhaps because Microsoft is
using C++, and they wanted to differentiate themselves? Nah. It *must*
be some kind of conspiracy.

Jim> Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???

Because they're both in the business of making money, and people are
willing to pay lots of good money for C++? Nah, it *must* be some
kind of conspiracy.

Jim> Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++
Jim> ???

Why would Sun and Borland shareholders *care* about technical things
like that? People buy stock to *make money*. All that a shareholder
cares about is that the stocks s/he owns do well, and show a
consistent profit. From an investment perspective, C++ seems to be a
good gamble. Who cares if it's not *technically* superior to its
competitors. All that shareholders care about is *market*
superiority. And you make more money selling C++ than selling some
unknown but superior alternative.

But no. That must not be it. It *must* be an anti-C+@ conspiracy.

 <MC>

--
|| Mark Craig Chu-Carroll: <MC> || "Only love
|| CIS Grad, Univ of Delaware   ||     can make love"
|| PGP key available by finger  ||  -Peter Gabriel
|| carroll@cis.udel.edu         ||

In article <3nnbpq$ma5@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
[del]
>Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???
[del]

You don't understand $$$. No matter the technical limitations of C++, it
makes *M*O*N*E*Y*. That's all a shareholder worries about. Thus, from a
shareholder's perspective, C++ does not have many limitations.

Now there are a bunch of technically superior languages out there, but
they don't make *M*O*N*E*Y*, so they are of limited value to
shareholders.

When (if) the C++ bubble bursts, techies will scramble for other
langauges. Shareholders will scramble for mining stocks or whatever.


--
---------------  When all else fails, find a scapegoat -------------------
Charles Manning                                   manningc@nz.dialogic.com
Dialogic New Zealand                              manningc@iconz.co.nz
Voice: (+64) 9 3661135x826 Fax: (+64) 9 3021793

In article <3o4g7a$s23@jupiter.SJSU.EDU>, horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu
says...

>Now I dunno how the shareholders of UNIR CORPORATION feel about their
>CTO wasting his time making enemies on the net...
>
>Cay

Patently obvious: UNIR is an anagram for RUIN CORPORATION.  Cute, but
certainly NOT a real, incorporated entity.

carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu (unknown) writes:


>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>In article <3nnbpq$ma5@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:


>Jim> Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to
>Jim> allow users to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and
>Jim> DO NOT USE C++ ???

>Could it be... *GASP*... because WWW applets have different
>requirements?

>Applets is the Sun term for programs that work in webpages. The
>language that it used to implement applets has to meet some unusual
>security requirements.

(discussion of the security details omitted)

>The only remaining question is: why do you want to start with C++ as
>the basis? And the answer to that is twofold:

>(1) Everyone knows C. If you use a language based on C, then 90% of the
>  syntax will be readable by the majority of your perspective users. The
>  fact that they don't need to learn to read and write a whole new syntax
>  makes the language seem much more approachable to new users.

Wrong.  Probably 0.01% of the population knows C. Worse, the majority
of prospective developers of WWW content are GA/Tech Pubs types who
will *never* bother learn as cryptic a language as C/C++.  Sun made a
monumental strategic error in deriving their language from C++ instead
of something approachable by people who are not professional
programmers.  They should have used a language like Basic, Tcl or a
scripting language like HyperTalk or Lingo.

Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
(and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
Java has *none* of these characteristics.

>Jim> Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++
>Jim> ???

Borland probably is, but Sun obviously missed the boat on this one.
What they created is just different enough from C++ to be annoying,
but not nearly different enough to get the benefits of working in a
VHLL.
  Scott

> <MC>

>--
>|| Mark Craig Chu-Carroll: <MC> || "Only love
>|| CIS Grad, Univ of Delaware   ||     can make love"
>|| PGP key available by finger  ||  -Peter Gabriel
>|| carroll@cis.udel.edu         ||

In <3ojo5g$g1k@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, raney@psych.colorado.edu wrote
this with possible deletions.
>
>Wrong.  Probably 0.01% of the population knows C. Worse, the majority
>of prospective developers of WWW content are GA/Tech Pubs types who
>will *never* bother learn as cryptic a language as C/C++.  Sun made a
>monumental strategic error in deriving their language from C++ instead
>of something approachable by people who are not professional
>programmers.  They should have used a language like Basic, Tcl or a
>scripting language like HyperTalk or Lingo.
>
>Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
>Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
>distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
>(and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
>Java has *none* of these characteristics.
>

I concur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist    cjames@cec-services.com
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   U S A
303.231.9437  Voice;  303.231.9438  Facsimile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <CARROLL.95May7135144@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>,
carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu says...
>
>
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Fleming <jim.fleming@bytes.com> writes:
>In article <3nnbpq$ma5@News1.mcs.com> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming)
writes:
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Below is an excellent response, expect maybe for the conspiracy remarks.
I have added some comments which I hope help to build on your remarks.

BTW, my major C++ concern which I assume that everyone knows is that the
developers of C++ have been allowed to present a one-sided story without
being "seriously" challenged from the industry, that the developers have
mislead people regarding C++'s *object-oriented* capabilities and the
metrics coming from projects prove that C++ has not delivered, and that
The C++ Machine has been "allowed" to run over other OO efforts in its
quest for world domination which it now has and few people have been
concerned about the way The C++ Machine has been allowed to operate.
People seem to write it of as standard operating procedure and point to
bogus "success" claims as a means of justifying the "means to an end".

Now that The C++ Machine has been backed into a corner via the ANSI
standards process, it will have less room to operate. We are already
seeing trends that show that The Machine is less capable of stomping
on anything that seems to get in it's way. Maybe this is because the
few remaining people that are fighting to keep C++ alive, are spending
all of their time trying to debug their standard, their language and
their compilers. Now that the ISO/ANSI spotlight is on them, they have
to deliver. This will be very difficult, because anyone that has looked
at C++ for serious OO capabilities knows that it falls far short of the
mark. Anyone that has looked at the proposed "class libraries" realizes
that the C++ standards effort is not only in a corner but also in the
difficult situation of promoting copyrighted proprietary works.

Sure C++ will sell as a "better C". In fact, this is how the skewed
"success" figures are used to show that C++ has delivered for OO. Since
most people that use C++, have never touched the OO extensions, they
are really just using C++ as C. Since there is already a fine ANSI
standard for C, many realize that the ANSI standard for C++ is only
needed if you believe that the C++ OO extensions are useful and should
be standardized. In order to justify such a standards effort, one needs
to first decide what OO capabilities are desired. When one does that,
C++ does not deliver. Unfortunately, many people have known this for
over 10 years. It is a shame that so much time and energy has been wasted
from people discovering this on their situation.

One good thing about C++ is that it has provided an interim solution for
people to "think" they were doing OO. It has allowed people to stay with
a C syntax. It makes sense that languages like JAVA and C+@ will leverage
off this C syntax "mind-set". The good news is that C++ will never be
able to "become" JAVA or C+@ now that the ANSI standards process has
progressed. The C++ Machine has now stopped moving, the spotlights are
on it, and it must deliver on its OO promises. Most people know, that
will be very difficult especially with the new generation of OO technology
that is starting to address "interactive content" and distributed networks
of plug & play objects.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Jim> Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to
>Jim> allow users to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and
>Jim> DO NOT USE C++ ???
>
>Could it be... *GASP*... because WWW applets have different
>requirements?
>

>Applets is the Sun term for programs that work in webpages. The
>language that it used to implement applets has to meet some unusual
>security requirements.
>
>When you write a program in C, C++, C+@, Objective-C, Ada, Pascal,
>Modula-3, or any of the other "standard" programming languages, you're
>writing it under the assumption that the person who uses that program
>is aware of it, and has considered the security risks associated with
>that application. You further assume that if the security risk is too
>great, it is the responsibility of the user to either accept that
>risk, take measures to alleviate that risk, or not run your program.
>Programs written in those languages don't get executed on a system
>without being put there and executed by the owner/user/administrator
>of that system.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Operating Systems and Operating Environments generally provide protection.
They do this by providing an execution environment that restricts
programs from violating whatever rules are established. When programs
are "executed" on a machine, usually the programming language is long
gone and all that remains are the compiled binaries. In most cases,
"the person who uses that program" has no idea which programming language
was used.

Programming languages are used to allow humans to write "code" which
can be "translated" into a binary form that is compatible with the
execution model provided.

In the case of C+@ (and I suspect JAVA) the execution model was designed
hand in hand with the language. In the case of C++, there has never been
a good model of the underlying "OO machine". This is partly because C++
was forced to start with the underlying "C machine" which is inherently
procedural.

raney@psych.colorado.edu (Scott Raney) wrote:
>carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu (unknown) writes:

>>The only remaining question is: why do you want to start with C++ as
>>the basis? And the answer to that is twofold:
>
>>(1) Everyone knows C. If you use a language based on C, then 90% of the
>>  syntax will be readable by the majority of your perspective users. The
>>  fact that they don't need to learn to read and write a whole new syntax
>>  makes the language seem much more approachable to new users.
>
>Wrong.  Probably 0.01% of the population knows C. Worse, the majority
>of prospective developers of WWW content are GA/Tech Pubs types who
>will *never* bother learn as cryptic a language as C/C++.  Sun made a
>monumental strategic error in deriving their language from C++ instead
>of something approachable by people who are not professional
>programmers.  They should have used a language like Basic, Tcl or a
>scripting language like HyperTalk or Lingo.

I have to disagree here. The majority of developers of Multimedia titles
do not use languages at all. They do everything with high-level tools
which *generate* scripts. The concept of writing in the scripting language
is seen as very low level. There's no reason why such tools couldn't
generate Java programs. This is exactly the same approach as Kaleida
are taking with ScriptX, another object-oriented multimedia language,
and as General Magic are taking with Telescript, another object-oriented
mobile language.


>Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
>Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
>distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
>(and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
>Java has *none* of these characteristics.

But they are *slow* which is a problem when you are dealing with the (soft)
real-time requirements of multimedia. Unless, of course, you code the
important functionality in C/C++, in which case, you end up with a large
run-time environment again. Again, the approach used by Java - compile
wordy source into terse byte-code - is the same as used in Telescript,
ScriptX *and Perl*. Transmitting the kind of wordy scripts which you need
for a large Tcl program would be prohibitive for the kind of application
Java is aimed at.

>Borland probably is, but Sun obviously missed the boat on this one.
>What they created is just different enough from C++ to be annoying,
>but not nearly different enough to get the benefits of working in a
>VHLL.

Personally, I find it close enough to C++ to be quite useful, and like the
fact that it has got rid of most of the bits of C++ which I hate!
I do agree that they could have chosen a nicer starting point than C++ but
can understand why they didn't.

--
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Name:   Nat Pryce MEng ACGI              | Mail:  Department of Computing, |
| Email:  np2@doc.ic.ac.uk                 |        Imperial College,        |
| Tel:    +44 (1)71 594 8934 (Direct Dial) |        180 Queen's Gate,        |
| Fax:    +44 (1)71 581 8024               |        London SW7 2BZ,          |
| WWW:    http://www-dse.doc.ic.ac.uk/~np2 |        United Kingdom           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

In article <3ojo5g$g1k@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> raney@psych.colorado.edu (Scott Raney) writes:

   Then there's the the VHLL argument.  Very High Level Languages (Tcl,
   Perl, HyperTalk, shell languages, etc.) are perfect for WWW
   distribution.  They're relatively easy to learn, compact, interpreted
   (and so require a smaller run-time environment), and very productive.
   Java has *none* of these characteristics.

Huh?  Java seems to have all of those features.  I'm no Java
enthusiast, but it certainly seems to be a normal nice small byte-code
interpreted, garbage-collected, threaded language , with the
interesting added feature of strong typing.  As far as I can tell,
it's about at the same level of usefulness as Perl 5, Python, VB, and
others of that ilk.  C++ it ain't.

By the way, I'm always amused to see people call Tcl a VHLL.  Talk
about mis-categorization...

Bill

--
 Bill Janssen  <janssen@parc.xerox.com> (415) 812-4763  FAX: (415) 812-4777
 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Rd, Palo Alto, CA  94304
 URL:  ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ilu/misc/janssen.html

In article <CARROLL.95May7135144@quadriga.cis.udel.edu>,
carroll@quadriga.cis.udel.edu says...

[a bunch of stuff that implies that the "am I willing to run this code
out there on the Internet on my machine" problem is is somehow related to
the problem of preventing dangling pointers in a program]

Sorry, but I don't get this.

First, it's not necessary: this same thing can be accomplished by running
the code in a separate process on a machine with a real operating system.

Second, it's not at sufficient. Before I'll run the code on my computer,
I sure want to know that it won't mess with data I don't want it to.

Java is way cool in some ways. In particular, among other things it's a
pretty nice job of a dynamically translating interpreter that performs
pretty well in a small space.

But does it at all in any way help the security issue in a fundamental
way? Sorry, but I just don't see that. Maybe someone could explain it to
me...

 Bob
 Microsoft

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:

: Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
: to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???

: Why is it that when Borland needs an Object Oriented language for their
: new flagship product line, Delphi, they DO NOT USE C++ ???

So far, so good. These are interesting questions. And the answer is obvious.
C++ is good at what it does, but it isn't the tool of choice for everything.

For example, I recently had to write an install program. Did I use C++? No,
I used a toolkit that sat on top of a Basic dialect. Hey, it worked, and it
worked a lot better than C++ would have for this problem.

Just last week I taught a C++ course to a bunch of Cobol programmers. Did
I advise them to dump all their Cobol code and rewrite their stuff?
Certainly not.I may get flamed for this, but Cobol is actually pretty good
at some things that happen to be pretty important to these guys. They are
using a mixture of Cobol, VB, C++, and SQL, and that makes sense to me.

I recently had to write some encryption code. And I used C++. It gave me
great performance and clear, easy to maintain code.

And now we witness the usual descent into lunacy.

: Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???

: Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???

Looks to me that Sun and Borland are doing the smart thing--they use C++
when it is strong and they use other tools when they are more effective.
Shareholders aren't going to object to that.

Now I dunno how the shareholders of UNIR CORPORATION feel about their
CTO wasting his time making enemies on the net...

Cay

In article <3o4g7a$s23@jupiter.SJSU.EDU>, horstman@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu says...
>
>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>
>: Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
>: to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???
>
>: Why is it that when Borland needs an Object Oriented language for their
>: new flagship product line, Delphi, they DO NOT USE C++ ???
>
>So far, so good. These are interesting questions. And the answer is
obvious.
>C++ is good at what it does, but it isn't the tool of choice for
everything.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Wonders never cease...C++ is NOW not the tool of choice for everything.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>For example, I recently had to write an install program. Did I use C++? No,
>I used a toolkit that sat on top of a Basic dialect. Hey, it worked, and it
>worked a lot better than C++ would have for this problem.
>
>Just last week I taught a C++ course to a bunch of Cobol programmers. Did
>I advise them to dump all their Cobol code and rewrite their stuff?
>Certainly not.I may get flamed for this, but Cobol is actually pretty good
>at some things that happen to be pretty important to these guys. They are
>using a mixture of Cobol, VB, C++, and SQL, and that makes sense to me.
>
>I recently had to write some encryption code. And I used C++. It gave me
>great performance and clear, easy to maintain code.
>
>And now we witness the usual descent into lunacy.
>
>: Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???
>
>: Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???
>
>Looks to me that Sun and Borland are doing the smart thing--they use C++
>when it is strong and they use other tools when they are more effective.
>Shareholders aren't going to object to that.
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I think it would be more accurate to say that it takes anyone 5 years
to discover that they are in trouble once they go down the C++ road.

Companies like Sun and Borland are finally seeing the light and have
obviously made some changes.

In the case of Borland C++ almost killed them, Delphi will be their
only hope at this point.

In the case of Sun, everyone has to understand that Sun has only
recently emerged from the bad partnership that was formed when AT&T
bought 20% of Sun in the late 80's. AT&T helped to create an attitude
at Sun that they did not understand software. Sun is just now starting
to recover from that era and is starting to develop its own software
identity. It still remains to be see whether Sun will be able to survive
the AT&T software influence that forced System V down Sun's throat.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>Now I dunno how the shareholders of UNIR CORPORATION feel about their
>CTO wasting his time making enemies on the net...
>
>Cay

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

My e-mail shows that I have more supporters than detractors. People like
you are not used to the "net". You are used to plugging your agendas in
the SIGs publications which are three to four months out of date when
they hit your desk.

Keep in mind since you are posting here, you are on the "net". You do
not have all of your buddies helping to censor the content of magazines
to make sure your agenda gets showcased. Here on the net, you will not
have time to check with all of your buddies to make sure you have the
"spin" right. I hope that you are able to survive on the net, which is
very different from the places you normally promote your agendas. You
might note, that the people who control those other forms of media
can not survive on the net.

I am encouraged by your comments above. You appear to take a more
moderate view of C++ and other tools. Hopefully, you will continue to
provide that type of moderate view here on the net. Also, since it
"appears" as if you are associatted with a University, you might also
want to keep in mind your social obligations to people that pay you
to teach their children.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3nnbpq$ma5@News1.mcs.com>, jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>
> Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
> to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???
>
> Why is it that when Borland needs an Object Oriented language for their
> new flagship product line, Delphi, they DO NOT USE C++ ???
>
> Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???
>
> Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???
>
 If you have a psychiatrist, I can get you an excellent
malpractice attorney :-)

jon borden
jabr technology corporation
medical image objects

Why is it that when Sun needs an Object Oriented language to allow users
to add "programs" to Web pages, they design Java and DO NOT USE C++ ???

Why is it that when Borland needs an Object Oriented language for their
new flagship product line, Delphi, they DO NOT USE C++ ???

Why do Sun and Borland continue to waste money on C++ ???

Are Sun and Borland shareholders aware of the limitations of C++ ???

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|