cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-12-13 - Re: Java DES breaker?

Header Data

From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
To: “Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM” <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Message Hash: 8936a60663e643d03b7fa18df1ffbbc845e5d2159d55815e4d1dad02f314937c
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961212221038.27578A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
Reply To: <6uBsyD129w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-13 03:22:15 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:22:15 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:22:15 -0800 (PST)
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Subject: Re: Java DES breaker?
In-Reply-To: <6uBsyD129w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961212221038.27578A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> I happen to have a Sparc 20 box and a Linux box and a SCO box, and ActiveX
> won't work on any of those. I also work with a bunch of other equipment
> that's much faster than a PC, but doesn't run browsers. (Most of it is not
> connected to the 'net for security reasons, but that's besides the point.)

Right, and Active X, if those machies were on the web, would not be 
supported.
 
> If Bill's client is sure to run the platforms that MS IE runs on, then this is
> not a consideration.

Correct, however there is one thing you have forgotten... (next paragraph)

> Interpreted FORTH bytestream (which is what Java is) may be "doing quite well"
> when drawing GUI gizmos and widgets, but it can't get anywhere near the
> performance of hand-optimizer assembler that you can stick into ActiveX.

While ActiveX does support hand optmized assembler, there are Java 
JustInTime compilers which take JVM bytecodes and turn'em into raw 
assembler.  They aren't hand optimized, they are natively compiled code, 
but they are native code non the less.  A good optimizing compiler may 
not be 100% as cool and as fast as hand optmized code, BUT it'll be 
almost as fast.  And Java will run on just about EVERY platform out there.
And that is a bigger, more important point than a 10%-25% increase in 
power over non-optimized code.

Besides, I'm not arguing AGAINST an ActiveX client, there's no reason 
why there can't be both Java and ActiveX clients out there since there is 
both a compatibilty issue and a speed increase with ActiveX.


=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If  you're  gonna die,  die  with your|./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on;  If you're  gonna  try,  just |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!"    |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|  --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Thread