Message-ID: <3BB63FF8.B1758875@csi.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:41:13 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Sycamora Tree? What the...?
References: <2jmsqt4s5mqmq428af8sv0mfarqhhqe2h4@4ax.com> <QYMr7.5744$f5.377153@news> <jQNr7.24958$vq.4806597@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.47.51.158
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.47.51.158
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1001799285 24.47.51.158 (29 Sep 2001 17:34:45 EST)
Organization: GBM Technologies Ltd
Lines: 27
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!easynews!uunet!dfw.uu.net!arb.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:93036

David Betz wrote:

> "Davey" <D@G.com> wrote in message news:QYMr7.5744$f5.377153@news...
> > Java.  Ugh.  When I hear that, I know this is old info.  And I'm relieved.
> > :) -d
> Just out of curiosity, why would using a JVM as a runtime for interactive
> fiction be a bad idea? You wouldn't even have to use the Java language. One
> could build a JVM code generator for Inform or some other popular authoring
> language. It has many of the advantages of the Z machine but is far more
> capable especially in the area of dynamic storage management. Granted, the
> resulting games wouldn't run on Apple IIs, Commodore 64s or CP/M-80 machines
> but is that the only reason the JVM would be a poor choice?

Apart from considerations mentioned by others, Java has a severe...identity
problem.  As far as I can tell (I tried briefly, a few months ago), you really
can't neatly isolate the JVM.  Java is as much a way of life, apparently, as a
programming language (and virtual machine, and security model, and...).

Plus, I never trust any language that has version numbers.  Compiler versions?
Sure.  Language revisions?  OK.  But a language should never have
"major-and-minor" designations...that shows a willingness to pull on underfoot
rugs and the like...


> BTW, I *did* notice the smiley after your comment but I had the impression
> that you weren't entirely kidding.

