Friday, May 6, 2005, 9:14:31 AM, you wrote: AH> Rutger Ovidius writes: >> Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote: >> >> AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking. Java is, by its very >> AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even generate >> AH> other classes on the fly. There is no way when linking to determine >> AH> what set of libraries is required. This is a simple fact, and no >> AH> amount of declaring " this is what users want!" is going to change >> AH> it. >> >> I didn't know that java had a nature.
AH> Now you do. Hallelujah! God is great. >> It has features. Some features will work when it is implemented in a >> certain way and some won't. AH> The set of features that work when linking statically is unspecified AH> and changes over time, depending on implementation details within the AH> library. The implementation details within the current library already allow the unspecified set of features to work when statically linked on win32. Chalk another one up to the big G. AH> If we wanted to come up with a new language subset compatible with AH> static linkage we could do that, but it would be a substantial design AH> effort and we'd need someone to do the work. Personally speaking, I AH> don't think it's a very good idea, as a lot of the Java language as AH> specified depends on dynamic linking, but I wouldn't obstruct someone AH> who really wanted to do it. I wasn't asking for a new language subset. I can understand that bestowing yet another nature on java would be a superhuman task. I wasn't asking for anything really. I was just expressing an opinion. Sorry for that.
