Could I use Java or c#? [was: Re: re-writing college books]

[leichter_jerrold at emc.com (Leichter, Jerry)]

| > >> If there is some construct that NEEDS to be interpreted to gain
| > >> something, it can be justified on that basis. Using interpretive
| > >> runtimes just to link languages, or just to achieve portability
| > >> when source code portability runs pretty well thanks, seems
| > >> wasteful to me.
| > >
| > > You think source code portability is good enough such that runtime
| > > portability isn't really needed?
| >
| > Anything beyond source code portability tempts the customer into use
| > on a platform where the developer has not tested.
| 
| But it has been tested, because if it runs on that jvm it has been
| tested for that JVM. a JVM version x on linux is the same as a JVM
| version x on windows. That's the point. Now maybe they try running it
| with a version x - 5 JVM, well fine, it may not work, but the response
| would be: "duh".
That would be nice, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, painful experience says it's not so.  At least not for
applications with non-trivial graphics components, in particular.

The joke we used to make was:  The promise of Java was "Write once,
run everywhere".  What we found was "Write once, debug everywhere".
Then came the Swing patches, which would cause old bugs to re-appear,
or suddenly make old workaround cause problems.  So the real message
of Java is "Write once, debug everywhere - forever".

Now, I'm exagerating for effect.  There are Java programs even quite
substantial Java programs, that run on multiple platforms with no
problems and no special porting efforts.  (Hell, there are C programs
with the same property!)  But there are also Java programs that
cause no end of porting grief.  It's certainly much more common to
see porting problems with C than with Java, but don't kid yourself:
Writing in Java doesn't guarantee you that there will be no platform
issues.
                                                        -- Jerry