*** Reply to note of Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:05:20 +0100 *** by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Linux Journal had an article on gcj (Jan 2003): http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4860 sal Herve Bonvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I had a meeting with the developers and they are not very please with = >the idea to use something else as java. >We place great hopes in the new java.nio package which should improve = >the io operations. It is jdk 1.4. I don't about gcj and jdk 1.4 but we = >will have a look.=20 > >I will let this list know about the result of our tests. We will test = >java versus cobol/delta (delta is a cobol generator used by our = >developers on z/OS). Perl, cobol on CMS are not an option because of = >lack of knowhow, IDE's ...=20 > >Thanks for all the informations I received from this list, >Herve=20 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Summerfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:55 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Java on zLinux for batch processing > > >> >> > Portability is also an important factor for us. Once the batch is=20 >> > running on z/OS, the migration to other plateforms is very=20 >> > difficult. If the batch is running on linux, the choice for future=20 >> > migration is much better. >> >> That's a slightly different problem, however -- batch on Linux vs=20 >> converting to Java. Converting to Java doesn't make applications that=20 >> much more portable -- you're just dealing with a different set of=20 >> porting problems. (try running a application built with the Sun JVM on = > >> a Windows system sometime -- Java isn't *that* portable). Running=20 >> batch on Linux is the same problem as running batch on any other Unix=20 >> system. >> >> As I said, our results with batch Java apps is pretty mixed. Your=20 >> experience might be better, but there are a lot of issues that tend to = > >> make it not worth the effort. > > >For java in batch applications, it's worth considering gcj, part of the = >Gnu Compiler Collection. If that's not up to snuff, consider hiring = >someone to help get it fixed. Bearing in mind the expense of any = >rewriting, I think that that wouldn't be a great additional burden. > > >By using gcj, you will get the performance benefits of compiled code = >with the coding benefits. > >I'm not a great fan of C, especially for anything Cobol and PL/1 can do = >well. >-- >Cheers >John Summerfield > >Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ > >Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my = >disposition. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >If you don't like being told you're wrong, > be right!
