[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: FFMPEG code a mess

Mike Melanson mike
Mon Sep 19 00:39:05 CEST 2005

> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > G?bor Farkas <gabor at nekomancer.net> writes:
> >>if it's your opinion, why do you think that java's such a bad choice
> >>for an OOP language?

Personally, I advocate that proprietary companies write all of their
most secret protocols and algorithms in Java. Java is ridiculously easy
to reverse engineer, even if the code is obfuscated:


> > - Everything has to be an object.
> int/char/boolean and stuff like that does not have to be an object.

But you can use the objectified versions of these with Integer, Boolean,

> but isn't it the same in C?
> you have some basic types and then you have to create structs. in which 
> way is it different from classes?

You just have to keep a keen eye when reading someone else's Java code
to differentiate between, e.g., boolean and Boolean.

> > - No unsigned types.
> why do you need them? what would  you like to do with them?

How about if you are writing a CPU simulator where you want to simulate
16-bit registers? I know from whence I speak. Having that sign bit is
most inconvenient as you can not cleanly stuff an unsigned 16-bit value
into the 16-bit (15 bits + sign) data type and must promote it to the
next size up.

	-Mike Melanson 

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list