Content deleted Content added
m →Reasons for preferring one language over the other: better explanation |
|||
Line 374:
:Yes, Java is a safe language and C++ is an unsafe language, in the terminology of type safety. Java does not allow arrays to be accessed out of bounds or dereferencing arbitrary memory locations as C++ does. I think the article already discusses this point in plenty of detail. Do you think something should be changed or added? Should we add the tradeoffs, such as Java does not allow buffer overflow errors which are common in C++ programs, although C++ permits interfacing with low-level hardware by allowing arbitrary memory accesses which Java does not allow? -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
: Note, that this argument was only true in 90s when the internet protocols didn't ensure failure-free communication. Since TCP-IP became widespread, the applications don't need to ensure the data integrity themselves as TCP-IP is failure-free protocol, so the argument is void. You may find interesting that supercomputers do not have any problems using C/C++ frameworks for communication between nodes. The result of any 'glitches' in the communication could be even more disastrous than you might think. A good illustration of this is that supercomputers usually use error-free components even though they cost several times more than consumer equipment. [[User:1exec1|1exec1]] ([[User talk:1exec1|talk]]) 12:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::You're misunderstanding what My Flatley was trying to say. To be honest, he didn't explain very well. The problems of C++ have nothing to do with communication. That's a red herring. The issue is that a Java program cannot have a security issue such as a buffer overflow problem, which C++ programs can have. That's why it can be unsafe to download and run a C++ program. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 13:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
== A new suggestion for approaching NPOV ==
| |||