Subject RE: [IB-Architect] UDF replacement: native shared libraries vs. J ava
Author Glebas Paulevicius
>A strong argument against Java is that Java strings are Unicode, so
>all strings passed between Java and the engine require translation,
>or that Java strings require allocation of two objects or that Java
>lacks string oriented byte codes. All true and must be considered.

Argument only as strong as UDF's make heavy use of strings.
Is there at least rough statistics (or simply a feeling) on that?
I suppose, they are mainly used for specific computations.

>I disagree. Interbase will be a better product if and when "native"
>languages are deprecated:
> ...
> 4. It will be more portable

I guess, just as portable as IB engine is,
since JVM would be embedded within the engine, won't it?

>Java is not for everything. It is impossible to implement a
>database with reasonable performance in Java. It is miserably
>slow for fancy string stuff. It's GUI is reprehensible. But
>as an embedded subsystem (for which it was originally designed)
>it is superb.
>Jim Starkey

Well said. Is a very good fit.