Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Absolutely, and I mean that quite literally.
> 
> I think portability isn't a binary quality.  You seem to be saying that 
> any turing-complete language is equally portable because you could write 
> an interpreter for it in some other language.  So why do people complain 
> about C# being microsoft-only? :-)
> 

Because they're lazy-a** b****es who would rather complain about ideals 
than get real work done?

After all, what if someone made a CPU that could execute Java bytecode 
directly?  (In fact, I think someone *has* done this)  At this point, 
the Java bytecode is now machine language.  Does that make it any less 
portable?

He**, is the Java bytecode any less portable for requiring an 
interpreter to begin with?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message