3 ms·
For a couple decades, x86 was absolutely dominant and there were no new architectures of any importance outside specific niches. Once you dealt with the OS spec
by AlotOfReading 6y ago
For a couple decades, x86 was absolutely dominant and there were no new architectures of any importance outside specific niches. Once you dealt with the OS specific oddities (which java also helped with), C++ was highly portable.
- jacques_chester 6y ago> For a couple decades, x86 was absolutely dominant On the desktop and servers, maybe. But there is more in heaven and embedded than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
- AlotOfReading 6y agoI work in embedded. Embedded Java has always been a huge set of tradeoffs, which is why it never took off outside of application platforms like mobile phones and set-top boxes. If you wanted the full fat SE Sun/Oracle JVM you were pretty much stuck with power or ARM, and even then you had to be careful. Remember the portability disaster that was symbian and Java ME? These ISAs weren't exactly the low end of the embedded market at the time either. The farther away from x86 you got the less portability you could actually take advantage of.
- kllrnohj 6y ago> Remember the portability disaster that was symbian and Java ME? Don't forget Java Card in that list. Which Oracle still tries to claim as a Java portability win, even though it doesn't support basically anything. And I don't mean missing standard libraries, I mean like it doesn't support char, double, float, and long, or multidimensional arrays. Support for int is even optional. Doesn't support exceptions and you can't even assume it has a garbage collector. Among many other limitations.
- jacques_chester 6y agoI had successfully blocked JavaCard. Boo.