Re: The problems with StringBuilders...

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "David" == David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> writes:

David> There are a class of applications where throwing binary compatability
David> away to achieve better optimization makes a lot of sense (think
David> embedded systems).  The reality is that current GCJ development is
David> biased more and more towards the binay-compatibility system in hopes
David> of making it easier to maintain server and workstation applications.

Yeah, it is true, in that this is the focus of those of us at Red Hat.
For the time being I think we're ("we" == "the part of Red Hat working
actively on gcj") basically interested in making existing java
applications in the desktop/server space run well with the smallest
number of application-specific hacks.  Hence BC, etc.

I still want gcj to be useful for embedded developers though.  I don't
think we're doing anything really damaging to that set of users -- but
let me know if I'm mistaken.

There have been a lot of changes to the build that are pretty gross,
and some of them I'm sure affect embedded folks -- compiling various
packages BC for instance.  And, there will probably be more in that
vein, e.g. whenever I finish testing the locale data merge patch.
But, my impression is that embedded users tend to do their own custom
libgcj builds anyway.

Tom