🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
It is quite plausible that J++ is superior to Java for writing programs
to be run under the Win32 operating system(s).  That's what it was
designed for.  I would also expect it to link easily with VisualC++
programs.  It should link easily with VisualBasic programs, but I would
have less expectation of that.

Java was designed to be "relatively" platform independant.  This
generally means that the core (both language & classes) doesn't take
advantage of special features of particular operating systems & machines
(although non-core libraries can do just that!).

Sun has been granted rights to define the Java language standard both in
International Agreement and in "homesteading" [i.e., Sun created Java
and has consistently maintained presence].  I don't feel that anyone
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.
-- 
Charles Hixson	charleshixson@earthling.net
(510) 464-7733	or chixso@mtc.dst.ca.us