User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no.

didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no.

Posted Aug 18, 2010 15:44 UTC (Wed) by tstover (guest, #56283)
In reply to: didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no. by Trelane
Parent article: A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle

good information. interesting stuff.

I had never considered that they intentionally made calling native code so gross with JNI for those reasons. That is especially interesting to me, since I consider that the most frustrating aspect of java.


(Log in to post comments)

didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 15:09 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]

JNI is IMHO complicated for two reasons:
1) a JNI library can be reused in binary form with whatever available JVM. That means that every access to an object must happen through a call to the JNI support library.
2) unlike, say, Python, you have a garbage collector instead of refcounting. Thus you need to use a different kind of API. I'm not sure if one is more complicated than another, but it is anyway a difference.
3) The unreliability of finalizers can easily cause leaks of native resources. Interestingly, .NET 1.0 got it even more wrong, by giving finalizers the familiar syntax of C++ destructor while they're a completely different beast (as well argued by Hans Boehm).

didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no.

Posted Sep 3, 2010 17:40 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Lua's FFI is surely proof that an FFI into a garbage-collected environment doesn't *have* to be an overcomplicated horror.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds