🚀 go-pugleaf

Charles Hixson wrote:

> It's true that J++ is a language VERY closely related to java.  It just
> doesn't quite meet the same definitions.  One can "easily" restrict
> oneself to a subset of J++ that is also a subset of Java, but there are
> Java features that are not features of J++, and there are J++ features
> that are not features of Java.
I'd rather doubt that restricting oneself to use the features that SEEM
to be the same in both environments will lead to portable applications.
Having experienced "portability" in other "ANSI-compliant" languages
(like M or COBOL) I'd say it's a risky business. Considering that one
of these environments is Visual J++ (Bill GateSoft) I keep my fingers
off completely.

> else has the right to modify it.  This doesn't mean that I feel that J++
> needs to be belittled.  It is its own langugage.  It just isn't Java,
> and attempts to muddy that ... irritate me.
There may be some flames and I may end up in a little black MS-SQL
database, but that's Microsoft's policy. They try to do the same as
with DR DOS years ago: Killing by incompatibilities.
Visual-J++ isn't Java and will never be Java - it's a look-a-like that
is fine for Windows programming, but is not intended to support
platform independence at all. That's OK for those who do not seriously
want to target other platforms/front-ends, but not for the others 
(and I believe they are the majority). 

I'd vote for a 

                       comp.lang.visualj++ 

as a cosy home for all windows programmers where they can discuss
their issues without being confused by Java issues...

-- 
Regards
  J�rgen

---------------------------------------------------------------
 J�rgen Kindler =B-)                     mailto:jki@shd.de
 SHD Datentechnik GmbH & Co. KG          fax:   (49)2632/295-269
 Rennweg 60                              phone: (49)2632/295-431
 D-56626 Andernach                       http://www.shd.de

      (-: The opinions expressed here are my private views :-)