Re: MI: why?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: MI: why?
• From: "Michael T. Richter" <mtr@ottawa.com>
• Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:30:05 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: Bell Solutions
• References: <000201bf5d57$72e15090$0f4098cf@cognitivearts.com> <387CFF85.5D0DDD75@miqs.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11446

Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com> wrote in message
387CFF85.5D0DDD75@miqs.com">news:387CFF85.5D0DDD75@miqs.com...
>> They were designing the language for an audience that still has
>> serious trouble with single inheritance, never mind multiple.

> Actually, the designers of Java created a language for writing
> small doodads to be downloaded into web pages. Then Sun marketing
> attempted to turn it into a general-purpose language for
> application development, using the time-honored technique of re-
> labeling the product.

Actually the designers of Java created a language for writing small,
embedded applications.  The JVM was once not all that V since the language
was designed for a specific processor architecture they were messing with as
well.  The applets were an attempt to get Java accepted in a wider market.
The remnants of the embedded origins of Java can be found in things like
JavaCard and in the picoJava chipsets.

--
Michael T. Richter    <mtr@ottawa.com>    http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nadiam@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)

• RE: MI: why?
• From: "Jonathan Arrender Smith" <jsmith@cognitivearts.com>
• Re: MI: why?
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>

• Prev: Re: MI: why?
• Next: Re: MI: why?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread