"Martin Gregorie"  wrote

| On Tue, 01 Sep 2020 21:07:14 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
|
| >   Yes. Except that it didn't really work. And it never belonged
| > in webpages. And it never belonged on the desktop. As I said,
| > it's used for in-house applets, just as .Net is. Neither of them is well
| > suited to desktop. What is? Compiled software.
| >
| What are you talking about?
|
| Javascript != Java

   No. And I have no idea how you got off on javascript.
You can call Java compiled if you want to count JIT,
but you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Java, like .Net, is far slower than native compiled
software. Even if it were native compiled, it still inserts
a superfluous layer. Neither has any place on the desktop.

| Python is compiled, though the compiler is semi-hidden as an interptreter.
| Its actually extremely portable - it will run anywhere that has a port of
| the interpreter. One of its main failings is that it has poor backward
| compatibility: A Python 2.7 program probably won't run on a Python 3
| interpreter.
|

  That's fine, but it's not really cross-platform. These
are all extra wrappers. You write a program that's
not cross-platform and that calls some kind of framework
or runtime that's customized for each platform.

| > Great, but not for desktops.
| >
| Not true. Java programs using the SWING GUI run just fine on my Linux
| systems and would run equally well under Windows - no recompilation
| needed.
|

  Then why is there virtually no Java software on the
Desktop? Even .Net is not common. It's more common
now, since MS started pre-installing the runtimes. But
like Java, it's not optimized for desktop.

| But most Java applications run on server farms.

  Isn't that what I said in the first place? So why
so much argument? I've got nothing against Java...
so long as you keep it off my desktop. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05