On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 07:39:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 07:27:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 08:24:27 deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 00:57:30 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
> It doesn't hide the source in any effective way. There are
> enough Java byte code => source translators around to prove
> that. It only takes one such tool to exist (and it's
> especially
> easy to create such a tool given D being open source).
Oh, so that's why java is never used in any company !
Java is used quite heavily by companies.
No it isn't, because they are afraid of bytecode decoders like
jad or JD.
Bytecode is only one possible way to use Java.
People seem to forget on purpose that bytecodes are just a
possible way to execute Java code and that actually there are
quite a few Java native compilers to choose from.
Java is much more than the Oracle's JVM.
As for not being used in companies, well my employer does
consulting work for Fortune 500 companies. You only have JVM and
.NET everywhere, with anything else considered legacy or stuff
that kids play with.
The last time I had the chance to do a C++ project at work was in
2006.
Now with the C++11 publicity going on, this might change,
otherwise the enterprise is all about JVM and .NET based
languages.
--
Paulo
