[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol)
- To: dgd@cs.bu.edu
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:02:53 -0500
>>This kind of argument went on in VRML and was wisely rejected.
>>The commitment to a CORBA IDL is a commitment to a syntax for the spec
>>and not a lot else.
>
>If Gavin's information is correct (and I assume it to be so) this is false.
>IDL means that we get language-specific bindings for several languages
>including Java and C++, simply by applyiing an automated tool. So there are
>concrete technical advantages to using IDL, though we must apply those
>tools for the programmers, so that I don't have to find an IDL tool to use
>XML with my Java codebase.
JAVA, C, C++, ADA (and if you use ILU, a whole lot more)
>> The commitment to JAVA for implementation
>>is only a commitment to a slow language.
>
>Again, verifiably false. There is no reason that native-code Java compilers
>cannot exist. Languages aren't slow -- implementations are. Something you
>learn sometime in your first 2 years of college...
There is already an i86 native code compiler, and I hear that the
FSF is working on incorporating JAVA into GCC.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
