> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:16:37PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Java code is supposed to be > > portable. If you compile it to machine binaries it is no longer a > > java program and should not be packaged as a such. > > You've been listening to too much Sun marketing. :-) > > Please give a rational reason for your position. If some Java code > compiles with gcj, and runs better when compiled to machine code, > why not package it that way? (class files should probably be > distributed in a -dev package.) It _does_ mean that the program would no longer have the same set of dependencies on JVMs and such that it would have in bytecoded form. I'd tend to expect that to be considered a _good_ thing... -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa")) http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/emacs.html All extremists should be taken out and shot. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc")) http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html Let me control a planet's oxygen supply and I don't care who makes the laws.
Attachment:
pgpU5M1B5RFbj.pgp
Description: PGP signature