Alan KF LAU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a Java programmer I seriously suspect any one could build a
> commercial-level(in-house, transaction-based, etc.) java application
> without java.security.
I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect".
"commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based".
And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based
without java.security - it just makes some things easier.
> My question is, Kaffe is funded by Microsoft(see my links in previous
> mail).
"is funded" is a misleading statement. Given my previous response,
one might wonder: are you being deliberately misleading?
> Who is determining such a low priority in implementing a feature so
> important? - The funder Microsoft? Or the developers deliberately
> cripple Java to a toy-programming language?
Let's see: C does not include the functionality of java.security,
so it must be a toy-programming language. C++ is the same way.
All languages except Java-with-java.security are toy languages?
Nonsense. You have a very parochial view of "commercial-level"
programming.
> I wouldn't believe the developers would like to see Kaffe become a toy.
>
> My apology for being surjective but it's very suspicious.
"surjective"?
One could turn the question around: why are you making these
poorly-justified accusations and innunendos?
(Note I am not particularly interested in the success of Kaffe,
given my association with Gcj, which can be viewed as a Kaffe
competitor.)
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/~per/
