I think there is some kind of misunderstanding. I am talking about executable binaries like fortran, pascal, and c compilers all normally produced say 10 years ago, not the java byte codes. For example, the Jet compiler produces an .exe for windows, but still requires auxilliary stuff so I don't like it. The compiler should be able to collect the library stuff as it compiles. John Love-Jensen wrote: > >>All the languages and compilers I have used before I started using java made standalone executables. It is a nuisance that the industry seems to have quit that neatness option. > > Just for comparison, out of all 554 non-script executable files in my /bin > and /usr/bin directories, only one of them is a standalone executable. > > Ignoring a few .COM programs that run under OS/2 and Windows, I don't > think I've written a standalone program since MS-DOS or Apple ProDOS (I > didn't do any programming on GS/OS). Even my Amiga programs relied on > arp.library and a few others. > > Sincerely, > --Eljay > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-java-executables-standalone--tf3999688.html#a11362684 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
