> Please, excuse my ignorance, but how come jdk 1.3 is called 'Java 2' and
> not 'Java 1.3' or something?
I'm not 100% about this, but I was once told because 1.2 took a while to
come out and because it had some bigger changes, people felt it was more
like a 2.0 release. I'll also go on to assert() that by this reasoning,
the real 1.3 can be viewed as 2.1.
I sure hope I'm not spreading misinformation with this post. If so, please
correct me. My on-again/off-again relationship with Java has no doubt left
me with several misconceptions.
--
Bruce Tong | Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
Sr. Software Engineer | Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
Electronic Vision / FITNE |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Joe Walsh for the 21st Century
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
