[clug] Why isn't Java popular on the Linux Desktop?

[Sam Couter]

Jack Kelly <endgame.dos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Depends on your perspective. I consider automake to be a pretty decent
> build tool, and if you were using it for java, you wouldn't have to
> use any of the configuration stuff. configure would do little more
> than check for GCJ and Makefile.am would look something like:
> 
> bin_PROGRAMS = foo
> foo_SOURCES = foo.java bar.java baz.java
> foo_LDFLAGS = --main=Foo

Or, since Java doesn't need any of what autotools does:

javac foo.java bar.java baz.java

What's the point in using autotools if you're not going to configure
your build?

If you want a build system, use Ant or Maven. autotools has nothing to
offer.

> I still think native-compiled java apps would be neat. But that seems
> to be just me.

Not just you, but there's very limited benefit there. A native-compiled
Java program still has to carry the Java runtime, either in the
executable or one of the linked libraries. That's about equivalent to
running it in a VM anyway. And you lose the advantages of JIT.
-- 
Sam Couter         |  mailto:sam at couter.id.au
OpenPGP fingerprint:  A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05  5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20090711/95c3f1c2/attachment.bin