Re: Quitting debian-java
- To: per@bothner.com
- Cc: akflau@itsd.gcn.gov.hk, debian-java@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Quitting debian-java
- From: Alan KF LAU <akflau@itsd.gcn.gov.hk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:18:31 EAT
- Message-id: <[🔎] 200103151018.SAA18549@itsd.gcn.gov.hk>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] m2wv9vxwea.fsf@kelso.bothner.com>; from "Per Bothner" at Mar 12, 101 3:35 pm
> I assume you mean "doubt" instead of "suspect". Thanks. > "commercial-level" does not mean "in-house, transaction-based". > And of course one can build commercial-level "in-house" transaction-based > without java.security - it just makes some things easier. Your point is?.... > Let's see: C does not include the functionality of java.security, > so it must be a toy-programming language. C++ is the same way. > All languages except Java-with-java.security are toy languages? > Nonsense. You have a very parochial view of "commercial-level" > programming. My toaster doesn't have java.security neither, and it's not a toy. You try to make your argument logical by making illogical comparison? I apology for my poor english, but I'd appreciate you to make your point in your argument instead.
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quitting debian-java
- From: Benjamin Black <bhb8@columbia.edu>
- Re: Quitting debian-java
- References:
- Re: Quitting debian-java
- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Re: Quitting debian-java
- Prev by Date: Re: Quitting debian-java
- Next by Date: Re: Quitting debian-java
- Previous by thread: Re: Newbie blackdown problem
- Next by thread: Re: Quitting debian-java
- Index(es):