Re: Stallman lamenting that GCJ and ClassPath are still (read: eternally) catching up ...

["Scott Gilbertson" <scottg at mantatest dot com>]

Bart Locanthi wrote:
> i think gcj can be a big player in the embedded systems world.

I'll second that.  For me, the main factor vs. C++ is anonymous class
capability.  It lets you produce large event-driven systems without billions
of nuisance classes.  AWT is nice too, in my particular application.

> btw anything that makes it easier to create statically linked binaries
> that don't include the kitchen sink will help in that area.

That too.

It's the main reason I'm one of the few using xlib peers for AWT.  They're
smaller (hence load faster), and my project (a test instrument) doesn't need
the standard clickable components or other gtk features (although I may need
to get bitmap graphics file display working at some point).  It pretty much
just needs to be able to draw stuff on the screen.  That's fairly typical of
embedded systems, I think.

Of course with javax.swing development marching along, xlib might be useful
even for "normal" GUI apps.  I'll have to try swing on xlib when I get some
free time, and see if the executables are smaller than the same app with gtk
(and also whether swing works with xlib, which I don't think anyone's
tried).

> Erik Poupaert wrote:
>
> >The "Java Trap" is otherwise an interesting read:
> >
>
>http://programming.newsforge.com/programming/04/04/07/2021242.shtml?tid=105
&tid=54
> >
> >He's lamenting about "GCJ and ClassPath still catching up".
> >
> >GCJ eternally catching up is otherwise a self-inflicted condition. I
mean, we all
> >know very well that it never pays to play copycat. There's no way to be
*and*
> >compatible with Sun *and* to let things drift there where the users want
to take them
> >-- and that's eventually the only strategy that guarantees success.
> >
> >Let's recap the GCJ successes from 1998 till this very day? None. What
will be the
> >GCJ successes in 2007? None again. It doesn't take a degree in advanced
econometrics
> >to see this coming.
> >
> >It all just sounds as if there were no niches -- at all -- in which GCJ c
ould be
> >successful and start building strength. Of course there are.
> >
> >