On Mar 11, 3:03 am, Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in 337600 20080310 222850 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Mar 10, 2:21 pm, Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Java is more portable than most other languages, especially if your app > >> needs a gui. > > >The promise of Java portability was one of the biggest scams ever > >perpetrated on the software industry. There are issues going from OS > >to OS, VM to VM, DB to DB, app server to app server, etc. Certainly > >no easier than porting C++ and the appropriate libraries, IMHO. > > Quite untrue - I have a stack of large java apps which run without change on > Linux, OS/2 and Windows. Not many, if any, other languages can match that, > and definitely not C++.
I'm happy that it's worked for you, but I haven't seen it in my experience. My current client has code that works in 1.4.0, but not higher versions of the JDK without code changes. And other that won't run in later versions of the app server (JBoss) than the one for which it was developed. And upgrading our SQL Server version required an upgrade of DB drivers. Another headache. They have their own JVM requirements as well, as do other packages and libraries. Getting them all to play together hasn't been seamless or easy by any stretch. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
