Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:00:05 -0800
> Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> You seem determined to miss the point, so heres the last try.
>
> It looks to me more like you tried to change the point after
> your claim that Java is the most portable language was shown to be
> false.

Unless anyone can actually list the platforms that these languages are
available for, this isn't going anywhere.

Firstly, although Java is often claimed to be portable, I'd be amazed if it
was the most portable language. Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone cares
how many obscure target architectures are supported by a language. Aren't
people more interested in the functionality provided by the language?

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.