From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:14:43 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 129 ************************************************** Thursday 07 February 2002 Number 129 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Somewhat OT: C#, Mono and GNOME : pla at cland.ru 2 Re: GLIBC : John Poltorak 3 Re: TCPIP32:DLL : Akira Hatakeyama 4 ipc.h : John Poltorak 5 Make 3.79.1 : John Poltorak 6 WGET 1.8 : John Poltorak 7 Sox 12.17.3 : John Poltorak 8 mailx ? : John Poltorak 9 Re: mailx ? : Sergey I. Yevtushenko" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 05:07:05 +0300 From: pla at cland.ru Subject: Re: Somewhat OT: C#, Mono and GNOME Well here is my opinion: People that know me know that I prefer Java & Co to stay in their right place i.e. trashcan. All facts I here tell you are proved by my rather long work with Java on very huge project that we were FORCED to rewrite in Java thanks to customers request. Here are my arguments: 1) Java was raised thanks to hype and in hype it works now. It works because it is POPULAR. Stupid as it may seem, but just trace back 2-3 year old magazines, see almost all have huge big great Java articles all in praises, most of them predicting C/C++ death ASAP and so on, that's why potential customers now see Java as some kind of salvation on all fronts. When we showed our product (a very huge XML powered Mobile devices server) to some US customers they looked and looked and then asked - can you re-write it in Java - we all opened our mouthes because people this thing worked well.. we just asked WHY .. no reason.. no answer - just because they want it. Nor that I try ranting but looking at new software that is like Windows XP, I can only whistle in amuse. 2) Java seems to be universal solution? No way people - each platform has its own extensions, pequliraties in VM realization, what cause 100% CPU hog on OS/2 can use 1% on Windows etc.. etc.. even more there are lots of cross-platform troubles when you use lots of stuff between lots of platforms. And to find them is harder than with C/C++ coding because you can't see what's 'inside' of VM.. And VM can and will crash because it can't work for 4-5 days with applications working inside of it - it starts leaking and seems that all new VM's leak heavily and I really hate Java monsters that eat 20-30Mb just because they have 'oh-so wonderful' garbage collection inside of them. Btw may be of course there is indeed some VM that can beat plain executable but according to our very serious tests well designed Java application is still a way slower especially on timely tasks. P.S. Java threading suck.. and seruously. Btw do mind that if you for example run 3 Java tasks you run three Java VM's that's it approx 60Mb of Ram used.. And they LOVE to grow their usage. You know we used Apache Bench and slowly increased requests per second - it was fantastic what Solaris JVM did.. and IBM aaarghh I remember one lock down.. JVM simply stopped serving requests and started eating mem.. Eat all and crashed. 3) It does not matter in what language you code - you'd better code good. And Java & Co teach to code ineffectively, inefficiently and etc. Java coders I know never care to tweak garbage collector, do some profiling, optimizations, I do not know may be my Java coder friends are just bad Java coders but I must note that Java itself is suited for this 'making the code with your left leg' way. As my friend once said - it works - what else do you need? 4) The real power of Java rests on its libraries that surround it. Look at Java books there you will not find lots of words about Language or about classes. 99% is populated with some java.xx.xx description. And I seriously disliked lots of STL like stuff in Java. STL seems to be more poweful and it has better functions. I am telling this with knowledge because we had to write lots of STL like classes ourselves.. And how do you like compiler messages like - hey dude this thing is old.. do not use it... Just imagine GCC telling you something like - hey strlen() sucks use s_strlen() instead. And Java compiler pretty much says this in lots of cases. 5) J2EE is a good thing. Hands down this thing can reduce lots of time when you code distributed application in C/C++ and it has good design in its head. But nothing is perfect it is buggy as hell and under heavy load can crash JVM very fast. Besides Sun J2EE is not cross platform at all - Linux, Windows and Solaris and what about OS/2 - Rest in Peace fellow Java/2 coders - we have Sun special extensions that IBM does not have! The conclusion: back to Earth - Gnome is still buggy and slow thing although I like it. As one Linux person stressed it will be much better to fix all bugs and add functionality instead of messing with some kind of new salvation. They want it - they will get it. Bye! **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:28:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: GLIBC On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:43:09PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 08:19:07PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > What should go in this 'development kit' ? > > > > I'm thinking of all the headers and libraries from EMX 0.9d + FIX04 , > > basically everything which goes into C_INCLUDE_PATH and LIBRARY_PATH. > > This is the development kit, right. All the libraries, headers and doc > files, except the compilers. Here's how I suggest creating this devlopment kit package, which I'll label LIBEMX for the time being. I'm going to skip the docs initially. -------------------------------------------------------------------- rem retrieve EMX/GCC (excluding latest Fix) wget -R emxfix04.zip ftp://ftp.leo.org/pub/comp/os/os2/leo/gnu/emx+gcc/*.zip rem extract contents of INCLUDE and LIB dirs unzip -o *.zip emx/include/* emx/lib/* rem retrieve EMX/GCC latest Fix wget ftp://ftp.leo.org/pub/comp/os/os2/leo/gnu/emx+gcc/emxfix04.zip rem extract contents of INCLUDE and LIB dirs unzip -o emxfix04.zip emx/include/* emx/lib/* rem retrieve Ilyaz's db.lib wget http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ilya/software/os2/db_mt.zip unzip -o db_mt.zip -d emx/lib/ rem **** rem retrieve other sundry headers and libs - contents TBD rem **** ren emx usr rem create LIBEMX package zip -r9 libemx usr/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- I think such a package will be useful until LIBEMU is available because it helps to define a standard build environment and lets people get up and running quickly without having to trawl round the net looking for assorted headers and libs. What I'd like to get is a list of headers and libs which people commonly include in INCLUDE and LIB, such as IlyaZ's db.lib, which are not part of the standard EMX/GCC distribution. > Holger > > -- > Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: > holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:08:49 +0900 From: Akira Hatakeyama Subject: Re: TCPIP32:DLL Greetings. On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 06:18:42PM +0100, Gerhard Arnecke wrote: > Conc. the question for programming a new TCPIP32.DLL > > This work was already done in Japan. This page l shows it as an EMX version: > > http://www.omronsoft.co.jp/~yamasita/gn/gn-1.40/os2/tcpip32.html I read this page, but content is not related to TCP. This page described "undelete" function in OS/2 Warp. -- Akira Hatakeyama E-Mail: akira at sra.co.jp http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/index.html chigasaki-minami, tsuzuki ward, yokohama, japan **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:40:16 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: ipc.h sys/ipc.h is much more recent in EMXTREE than EMX/GCC. I assume this is correct. Where does it come from? Also what is the source of sys/sem.h and sys/shm.h ? -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:03:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Make 3.79.1 Just wondering if any progress has been made with Make 3.79.1... Andreas has gone very quiet since he asked about the location of the latest ported source. Don't know if this is a good or a bad sign. -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:07:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: WGET 1.8 Does anyone have a build of WGET v1.8 ? -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:10:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Sox 12.17.3 Does anyone have a working builld of Sox 12.17.3 or even .2 ? I managed to build it but it didn't work correctly. -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:15:20 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: mailx ? Has anyone ever come across an OS/2 port of BSD mailx ? -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:44:00 +0200 (EET) From: "Sergey I. Yevtushenko" Subject: Re: mailx ? On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 21:15:20 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > >Has anyone ever come across an OS/2 port of BSD mailx ? > As far as I know, there is some kind of mailx in the UUPC package.. Regards, Sergey. *-------------------------------------- ES at Home