|
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:44 AM EDT |
As long as the targeted device supports a VM implemented to the
same spec across devices, the code will run (the actual detailed code that forms
the VM will vary across platforms, as it interacts with the specifics of the
platform and hides the details of the underlying platform and device - it's like
a compatibility layer, or common denominator)
This is not
entirely true. The design of Java was rather clever. To slightly oversimplify
things: they tried to keep the VM as simple and hardware/OS independent as
possible so they moved as much of the hardware/OS dependent code into the
core APIs. This is one reason why the core APIs are essential to Java in a
way that the core Perl modules are not essential to Perl.
This is a
clever design strategy. It is also why people are required to run the TCK
(Technology Compatibility Kit) on their core APIs in order to call their
implementation "Java". How can the compatibility of the core APIs be essential
for calling something Java while at the same time be extraneous from Java? The
job the TCK performs gives a clear and unambiguous definition of what Oracle
means by the word "Java" despite what they might say on the witness
stand.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
> Nothing about the API or language specs is really related to cross platform
compatibility
Let's give Sun some credit. Some of the MS.NET APIs are just
lazy wrappers
around Win32 C libraries. On the other hand, Java always seems to
want to 'do
the right thing'.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Any features related to WORA in the Java API Specification are functional and
not copyright protectable creative expression fixed in the Specification medium.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|