Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BGB Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcm9pZOKAlFdoeSBEYWx2aWs/?= Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 01:03:35 -0700 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.albasani.net w+offS+2WiG15XE8IhxZs0j7ugtqiI6uB3f50hI1Xdw+qfScgNmOPFw137/0ZHxFTkIG0EFdJ/aV9cEM1l4CWQ== NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 08:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="zf4ynhGK7Y70q2XzSirmIOqiMVqE44XsARXOrehT5qqpAYRIADjgV2dNLqycqCTDF0nJfaC8TDVEsTp/H7InoXEgaMIPGo5Y0d6bIZCY9WJJtyDlPo77tjw2uLLVO/G5"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:gLFdE6Tl/woCoUY1mJ6Xv6uWF1I= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4727 On 5/30/2011 12:12 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message, BGB wrote: > >> On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message, BGB wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message, BGB wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ... there is always J2ME ... >>>>> >>>>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out >>>>> earlier. >>>> >>>> well, it can be used as a starting point ... >>> >>> I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a “starting >>> point”. >>> >> no, not using code, but using its spec, and writing something according >> to the spec... > > But the J2ME spec is unsuited to ultramobile devices, as pointed out > earlier. if you say it is "unsuitable" then it is sort of expected to say in which ways it is unsuitable... J2ME was designed for cell-phones and embedded devices. its likely main drawback now, is that it would (just by itself) lack many of the J2SE features. but, that is why it would be a "starting point". one can add any features if they are needed... given J2ME is mostly a subset of J2SE, and so if J2ME wont work (due to overhead or similar), J2SE sure-as-hell wont work. one can still implement a good portion of J2SE as well if they want, only the spec does not require them to do so, whereas J2SE conformance would require providing an implementation for pretty much the entire class library. Android mostly implemented much of the J2SE featureset, rather than the J2ME featureset, which is part of what caused controversy. or, one can do like with Dalvik, and use a different bytecode or similar, if they really want (although this does add the issue of either needing to provide a custom compiler, or trans-compiling JBC to the custom bytecode prior to distribution...). less effort though is to stick with the standard bytecode though unless there is some strong reason to do otherwise... and, as for JBC (and the ".class" file format, ...) there are other specs for this. provided one doesn't do something which directly violates a spec, all is well and good... anything which works, works...