On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:31AM -0400, Daniel Barowy wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>>> Somehow the word Java comes to mind...
>>>
>>> Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again.
>>
>> Are you saying that Java is not being used widely? All of the fundamental
>> courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my
>> department is an exception. Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that
>> Sun considers Java a great success.
>
>I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the
>previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here.
Interesting! In my (admittedly limited) experience, software built with
an older version of Java nearly always runs just fine with a later
version of the Java runtime. The only exceptions I'm aware of involve
one of the rare and well publicized API changes in the class libraries
or Microsoft's pseudo-Java, which was deliberately incompatible (in
violation of the Java licence) as a marketing move.
Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
