From: "Randy H" 

There's been a few attempts to host COBOL compilers that geneate Java
bytecode (Fujitsu's original NetCOBOL, not to be confused with their
current NetCOBOL product designed for .NET)

"Tony Ingenoso"  wrote in
message news:3f007fb8{at}w3.nls.net...
> From a Turing machine POV, sure you can run anything on the JVM.  I'd like
to see someone implement something like Fortran or Lisp
> on it as a real test of its practical flexibility.   There's a reason why
it called the JVM rather than UVM.
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3eff38f9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > MS isn't forcing C# on anyone so far, and  .NET is a universal
runtime -
> > worthless without things to run on top of it.
> >
> > Kind of just like the JVM.  Sun isn't forcing anything either.  (p.s.,
you
> > do know the .NET runtime is in W2K3Server, don't you.)
> >
> > >Java is the
> > > only self proclaimed, self contained, universal one-stop shopping
solution
> > so far from >what I see.
> >
> > If that were what it was I'd agree, but it's not.
> >
> > > I trust Sun less than I trust Microsoft, which isn't a whole lot
anyway.
> >
> > I trust each of the pretty much equally. (in other words, I don't trust
> > either of them whatsoever.)
> >
> > > With Sun Java,  that's it - you get Sun Java period, and a JVM ill
suited
> > to anything better that may happen along.
> >
> > And you get something other than Microsoft with .NET -- that's a laugh,
they
> > control it all.  If your talking Microsoft allowing other development
tools
> > and languages, so does Sun.  IBM has a pretty good development suite as
do
> > several other companies, and you do know that other languages can be run
in
> > a JVM than Java, don't you...
> >
> > >I find it
> > > offensive that courts want to compel me to use what's going to become
a
> > constrained >dead end product at some point (due to its
> > > inherant architectural problems).
> >
> > And I find it offensive that Microsoft isn't being punished for doing
> > something illegal.  Note that I also said that the JVM should be
optional in
> > an install, unlike what Microsoft does with .NET runtime in W2K3S...
> >
> > - Bob Comer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tony Ingenoso"  wrote
in message
> > news:3eff2d27{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > MS isn't forcing C# on anyone so far, and  .NET is a universal
runtime -
> > worthless without things to run on top of it.  Java is the
> > > only self proclaimed, self contained, universal one-stop shopping
solution
> > so far from what I see.
> > >
> > > I trust Sun less than I trust Microsoft, which isn't a whole lot
anyway.
> > Microsoft always tolerated competition in the languages
> > > field, and was thrashed soundly by Borland (Tpascal and TD
> > usability/features) and Watcom (code quality)  on several occasions.
> > > .NET is a universal platform anyone can compete on with development
> > tools - in essense cross platfrom API and common services that
> > > are badly needed on the net, that addresses many of the Sun JVM's
> > deficiencies (ex. implementing anything but Java on top of it
> > > could be a challenge).
> > >
> > > With Sun Java,  that's it - you get Sun Java period, and a JVM ill
suited
> > to anything better that may happen along.  I find it
> > > offensive that courts want to compel me to use what's going to become
a
> > constrained dead end product at some point (due to its
> > > inherant architectural problems).
> > >
> > > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> > news:3efee14f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > I don't know of any that compete in the universal,
cross-platform,
> > browser
> > > > invoked category.  I think Sun (and most Java proponents)
> > > > > have argued that Java is far more than an ordinary
"language".
> > > >
> > > > It's true Java is the best cross-platform language, but each
platform
> > has
> > > > something that works better than Java. And then there's
C# and the
.NET
> > > > runtime from a real monopolist that would like to see it on more
> > > > platforms...
> > > >
> > > > >I think Sun (and most Java proponents)
> > > > > have argued that Java is far more than an ordinary
"language".
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with those guys. (yet, anyway)
> > > >
> > > > - Bob Comer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Tony Ingenoso"
 wrote in message
> > > > news:3efe7d80{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > I don't know of any that compete in the universal,
cross-platform,
> > browser
> > > > invoked category.  I think Sun (and most Java proponents)
> > > > > have argued that Java is far more than an ordinary
"language".
> > > > >
> > > > > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> > > > news:3efd2339$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > > Nope, Java has lots of other languages to compete with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Bob Comer
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tony Ingenoso"
 wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3efd04ab{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > > > But, then you've got MS being an
accessory to the creation of
a
> > Sun
> > > > Java
> > > > > > monopoly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3efc7125$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All our PC's use it, so why not be
built in to an install
and
> > SP's,
> > > > > > saves me
> > > > > > > > time and time is money.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4