On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:31AM -0400, Daniel Barowy wrote:

quoted text
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote:

>>> Somehow the word Java comes to mind...

>>>

>>> Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again.

>>

>> Are you saying that Java is not being used widely?  All of the fundamental

>> courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my

>> department is an exception.  Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that

>> Sun considers Java a great success.

>

>I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the

>previous/next version is incompatible.  Nothing new here.

Interesting!  In my (admittedly limited) experience, software built with

an older version of Java nearly always runs just fine with a later

version of the Java runtime.  The only exceptions I'm aware of involve

one of the rare and well publicized API changes in the class libraries

or Microsoft's pseudo-Java, which was deliberately incompatible (in

violation of the Java licence) as a marketing move.
	Dave
--

Dave Anderson