Subject RE: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared libraries vs. J ava
Author Phil Shrimpton
> From: Kim-Bo.Madsen@...


> Java as UDF????
> I know Oracle has taken that turn in 8i..... but....
> Im also developing in Java, and in my opinion one should not use Java for
> such purpose of two reasons... speed and memory requirements.
> JBuilder 3 C/S needs at least 384 MB to run in an acceptable
> speed on a PIII
> 450 Mhz platform. IBM Visual Age requires around 512MB (thats the number
> I've been recommended) on the development platform.

Sorry, I must disagree with you here. We are currently developing a CORBA
system, and as you can't develop CORBA servers in Delphi, we evaluated the
two other main languages, C++ and Java. Yes, C++ was very slightly faster
than Java (we are talking micro seconds), but that was by far outweighed by
portability; we can develop, test and deploy on any platform that has a
Virtual Machine (which is most), with changing a line of code or even

I agree that the development IDE's and GUI based Java apps are slow, but
when you are developing small classes of functions (e.g. UDFs), speed and
memory does not really come into it.

If Java is implemented for UDFs, I can't see 'native' code support being
dropped, so if you know your platform you can use Delphi, C++ etc., but if
you want portability you have the choice of Java.

I would appreciate this, having just had to re-write a load of UDFs from
Delphi to C++ to use on Linux (until Kylix arrives that is).


Phil Shrimpton
Project JEDI DCOM Team Captain
Project JEDI Library Team
Registered Linux User #155621