• To: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Subject: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 14:52:34 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20040406124158.GG15053@w...>
• References: <40716EFF.4050405@a...> <407182A3.5090502@o...> <40729C26.1080806@c...> <20040406124158.GG15053@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Macintosh/20040208)

Liam Quin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 08:01:42AM -0400, Mark Schmeets wrote:
>>  I have always assumed it was because the were using DOM's
>> internally, and that the
>> DOM implementations were memory hogs. Any one have any wisdom to share here?
> 
> For Java-based software, the JVM you use may also make a difference,
> although my experience (mostly on Linux) has been that the non-Sun JVMs 
> don't actually run much software I want to run.

I have to second this, GUI apps written in Java (oXygen for instance) 
simply don't run on a 900 Mhz G3 with 768mo because they hog all 
resources, or they simply fail to load (EditiX). Java's pretty much a 
Widows-only (ok, and MIDP) language IME.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• References:
  • Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Mark Schmeets <mark@c...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: xpath in IE
• Next by Date: Re: xpath in IE
• Previous by thread: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Next by thread: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread