Steve, I somehow expected this to go better; you would swear devotion to Java and denounce all-things assembler :-)
Of course, its always easy to make fun of "write-once / run everywhere". But the reality is that, in practical terms, you can write code that runs everywhere, even though it is also possible to write code that is platform or JDK-level dependent. We regularly write and reuse Java libraries on multiple platforms (Windows, Unix, Linux, z/OS) without recompiling. Take for example the Apache Tomcat servlet engine... you can run it on z/OS without recompiling or changing a single line of code. (and BTW Tomcat is a pretty large code base, not all of it pretty, that pulls in scores of other open source libraries). This is not to say that it is not possible to write code that has dependencies that would prevent portability. As an example, Apache's J2EE engine "Geronimo" has code that depends on private Sun-internal JDK classes, which prevents it from running on IBM's JDKs. Following your reasoning, this is proof that Java is -not- write-once/run anywhere. Do you recognize no value in the fact that the vast majority of Java applications are portable, both to other platforms and to later versions of the SDK? I've written a fair amount of 370 assember in the last 25 years... it has its place, but I think that most simple comparisons to Java are meaningless. I will concede that significant performance issues exist with Java on z/OS, even with zAPP. IMO, if you really like MVS (z/OS), you had better hope that lots of people want to run Java on it in the future. Am I alone in believing this? ....I'm interested in other opinions. Regards, Kirk Wolf On 11/20/05, Kirk Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While it might resonate on this list, I find your argument somewhat > specious. > > Under consideration we have a large Java app of dubious quality that > requires a specific version of Java. You compare that to some code that > you wrote that still runs and your conclusion seems to be that assembler is > more version-portable than Java. Of course, it could be true, but other > (possibly specious) reasons could be given: > > - The complexity of a typical java program and the large set of class > libraries included in the JDK can lead to more compatibility problems. > - Assember is more version-portable because you can't do much with it that > you couldn't do 30 years ago :-) > - Assembler is better because bad programmers can't use it > > IMO, a somewhat better analogy would be to compare this java app to a large > CICS BAL application written for 1.5 that won't work on the new version of > CICS. > > Generally, it is rare to find Java apps that are written for one JDK level > that won't work on a later level. In this particular case, it could be > something as obvious as an application that checks for a specific version > and won't allow any other that it wasn't specifically tested with. > > Its best to avoid vendors that can't keep reasonably current, no matter > what language they use. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
