Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[Rutger Ovidius <r_ovidius at eml dot cc>]

Friday, May 6, 2005, 9:14:31 AM, you wrote:

AH> Rutger Ovidius writes:
 >> Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
 >> 
 >> AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking.  Java is, by its very
 >> AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even generate
 >> AH> other classes on the fly.  There is no way when linking to determine
 >> AH> what set of libraries is required.  This is a simple fact, and no
 >> AH> amount of declaring " this is what users want!"  is going to change
 >> AH> it.
 >> 
 >> I didn't know that java had a nature.

AH> Now you do.

Hallelujah! God is great.

 >> It has features. Some features will work when it is implemented in a
 >> certain way and some won't.

AH> The set of features that work when linking statically is unspecified
AH> and changes over time, depending on implementation details within the
AH> library.

The implementation details within the current library already allow
the unspecified set of features to work when statically linked on
win32. Chalk another one up to the big G.


AH> If we wanted to come up with a new language subset compatible with
AH> static linkage we could do that, but it would be a substantial design
AH> effort and we'd need someone to do the work.  Personally speaking, I
AH> don't think it's a very good idea, as a lot of the Java language as
AH> specified depends on dynamic linking, but I wouldn't obstruct someone
AH> who really wanted to do it.

I wasn't asking for a new language subset. I can understand that
bestowing yet another nature on java would be a superhuman task. I
wasn't asking for anything really. I was just expressing an opinion.
Sorry for that.