What is portability? How is java more portable than other languages?

Question

I wonder how Java is more portable than C, C++ and .NET and any other language. I have read many times about java being portable due to the interpreter and JVM, but the JVM just hides the architectural differences in the hardware, right? We'd still need different JVMs for different machine architectures. What am I missing here? So if someone writes an abstraction layer for C for the most common architectures, let's say the CVM, then any C program will run on those architectures once CVM is installed, isn't it?

What exactly is this portability? Can .NET be called portable?

Solution 1

Portability isn't a black and white, yes or no kind of thing. Portability is how easily one can I take a program and run it on all of the platforms one cares about.

There are a few things that affect this. One is the language itself. The Java language spec generally leaves much less up to "the implementation". For example, "i = i++" is undefined in C and C++, but has a defined meaning in Java. More practically speaking, types like "int" have a specific size in Java (eg: int is always 32-bits), while in C and C++ the size varies depending on platform and compiler. These differences alone don't prevent you from writing portable code in C and C++, but you need to be a lot more diligent.

Another is the libraries. Java has a bunch of standard libraries that C and C++ don't have. For example, threading, networking and GUI libraries. Libraries of these sorts exist for C and C++, but they aren't part of the standard and the corresponding libraries available can vary widely from platform to platform.

Finally, there's the whole question of whether you can just take an executable and drop it on the other platform and have it work there. This generally works with Java, assuming there's a JVM for the target platform. (and there are JVMs for many/most platforms people care about) This is generally not true with C and C++. You're typically going to at least need a recompile, and that's assuming you've already taken care of the previous two points.

Yes, if a "CVM " existed for multiple platforms, that would make C and C++ more portable -- sort of. You'd still need to write your C code either in a portable way (eg: assuming nothing about the size of an int other than what the standard says) or you'd write to the CVM (assuming it has made a uniform decision for all of these sorts of things across all target platforms). You'd also need to forgo the use of non-standard libraries (no networking, threading or GUI) or write to the CVM-specific libraries for those purposes. So then we're not really talking about making C and C++ more portable, but a special CVM-C/C++ that's portable.

Once again, portability isn't a black and white thing. Even with Java there can still be incompatibilities. The GUI libraries (especially AWT) were kind of notorious for having inconsistent behavior, and anything involving threads can behave differently if you get sloppy. In general, however, it's a lot easier to take a non-trivial Java program written on one platform and run it on another than it is to do the same with a program written in C or C++.

Solution 2

As others have already said, portability is somewhat of a fuzzy concept. From a certain perspective, C is actually more portable than Java. C makes very few assumptions about the underlying hardware. It doesn't even assume that there are 8 bits in a byte, or that negative numbers should be represented using two's complement. Theoretically, as long as you have a Von Neumann based machine and a compiler, you're good to go with C.

In fact, a "Hello world" program written in C is going to work on many more platforms than a "Hello world" program written in Java. You could probably get the same "hello world" program to work on a PDP-11 and an iPhone.

However, the reality is that most real-world programs do a lot more than output "Hello world". Java has a reputation for being more portable than C because in practice, it takes a lot more effort to port real-world C programs to different platforms than real-world Java programs.

This is because the C language is really ANSI-C, which is an extremely general-purpose, bare-bones language. It has no support for network programming, threading, or GUI development. Therefore, as soon as you write a program which includes any of those things, you have to fall back on a less-portable extension to C, like Win32 or POSIX or whatever.

But with Java, network programming, threading, and GUI tools are defined by the language and built into each VM implementation.

That said, I think a lot of programmers also underestimate the progress modern C/C++ has made in regard to portability these days. POSIX goes a long way towards providing cross-platform threading, and when it comes to C++, Boost provides networking and threading libraries which are basically just as portable as anything in Java. These libraries have some platform-specific quirks, but so does Java.

Essentially, Java relies on each platform having a VM implementation which will interpret byte code in a predictable way, and C/C++ relies on libraries which incorporate platform specific code using the preprocessor (#ifdefs). Both strategies allow for cross platform threading, networking, and GUI development. It's simply that Java has made faster progress than C/C++ when it comes to portability. The Java language spec had threading, networking and GUI development almost from day one, whereas the Boost networking library only came out around 2005, and it wasn't until 2011 with C++11 that standard portable threading was included in C++.

Solution 3

When you write a Java program, it runs on all platforms that have JVM written for them - Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc.

If you write a C++ program, you'll have to compile it specifically for each platform.

Now, it is said that the motto of Java "write once, run everywhere" is a myth. It's not quite true for desktop apps, which need interaction with many native resources, but each JavaEE application can be run on any platform. Currently I'm working on windows, and other colleagues are working on Linux - without any problem whatsoever.

(Another thing related to portability is JavaEE (enterprise edition). It is said that applications written with JavaEE technologies run in any JavaEE-certified application server. This, however, is not true at least until JavaEE6. (see here))

Solution 4

Portability is a measure for the amount of effort to make a program run on another environment than where it originated.

Now you can debate if a JVM on Linux is a different environment than on Windows (I would argue yes), but the fact remains that in many cases there is zero effort involved if you take care of avoiding a few gotchas.

The CVM you are talking about is very much what the POSIX libraries and the runtime libraries try to provide, however there are big implementation differences which make the hurdles high to cross. Certainly in the case of Microsoft and Apple these are probably intentionally so in order to keep developers from bringing out products on competing platforms.

On the .net front, if you can stick to what mono provides, an open source .Net implementation, you will enjoy roughly the same kind of portability as Java, but since mono is significantly behind the Windows versions, this is not a popular choice. I do not know how popular this is for server based development where I can imagine it is less of an issue.

Solution 5

Java is portable from the perspective of the developer: code written in Java can be executed in any environment without the need to recompile. C is not portable because not only is it tied to a specific OS in many cases, it is also always tied to a specific hardware architecture once it has been compiled. The same is true for C++. .Net is more portable than C/C++, as it also relies on a virtual machine and is therefore not tied to a specific hardware architecture at compile-time, but it is limited to Windows machines (officially).

You are correct, the JVM is platform-specific (it has to be!), but when you say Java is portable, you are talking about it from a developer standpoint and standard Java developers do not write the JVM, they use it :-).

Edit @Raze2Dust To address your question. Yes, you could. In fact, you could make Java platform-specific by writing a compiler that would generate machine code rather than bytecode. But as some of the other comments suggest, why would you do that? You'd have to create an interpreter that maps the compiled code to operations in the same way the JVM works. So the long and short of it is, absolutely, you definitely could, but why would you?

View more solutions