Bruce,
Since no one has chimed in, we'll have to assume you're right. Thanks
for the explanation.
Assuming you're correct, my spontaneous reaction is that I find the
numbering scheme ridiculous. (But that's for sure not *your* fault. :-)
Best regards
Gustav
Bruce Tong wrote:
>
> > 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
--
pgp = Pretty Good Privacy.
To get my public pgp key, send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit my web site at http://www.schaffter.com
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
