Re: 32 or 64
don wrote:
don wrote:
For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?
Depends.
I have both installed, but I have not used the 32-bit version on a 64-bit=
computer in years.
Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, li=
ke
Which ones require the 32-bit version? No Java program, for sure.
eclipse [sic]. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but=
found
that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.
And yet they include a 64-bit JAR for the SWT part, which contains native c=
ode.
Hmm. Could you be mistaken?
There's nothing in the Vuze documentation that limits it to using 32-bit Ja=
va.
It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed=
on
Especially since you don't.
a machine. I'd like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means t=
he 32
bit would be the one to use since it's probably the most compatible. A=
nd
They're equally compatible. Java bytecode doesn't change for 64-bit vs. 32-=
bit.
that seems like moving backwards.
The operative word being "seems" since the premise is false.
One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn't it desirabl=
e
that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and=
obsolete the 32 bit version?
No, since one doesn't render the other obsolete.
For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of al=
l
the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require user=
s
to have installed two versions of the Java VM?
No, but then no one does.
What other obstacles? Java is arguably the most widely accepted programming=
language right now. Certainly it's up there.
Facts not in evidence, premise of the question not valid, there is no
meaningful answer.
--
Lew