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 03:58:47 -0700 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 57 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 2v9vuZJjT5GLHfPNd+wu2dy+YrM5qc/SIBkQ4oLyZmTZe9MxKIq1JTONhMBfziT8+zBH95e+KHp9r1v/JrNZDG03HqzWqmVn0CNaA171sjiRk6p06XG2DDgG0OnSKYnn NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="2ewAHOX+cMhUHmgbIIYJAl+JBV7NUMRm9owQI8n+h2AcohQV3r+BZ7cFH32uMkgWbjbHhznKNG7fwiNUTzWv/6FK1AIrqfwoNStD5KIHzvpBcBqhiBQrQMparBRoRJ0M"; 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:sDAeKQly8JW1sxHfqLZKqbIZ7E8= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4736 On 5/30/2011 3:13 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message, BGB wrote: > >> 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... > > Already done. See the posting that started this thread. > I looked, and these are not solid answers, in that no real basis is given apart from plain assertions, and would if-anything, be taken as an argument against some particular implementation, rather than against the spec that exists (the spec for what the spec says), which is essentially just an API reference for a list of classes which would need to be provided by *an* implementation... so, it doesn't hold water... especially when, in this instance, it is typical that each implementer provides their own implementation, in which case, none of those original issues hold, as none are, in-fact, mandated by the spec. one can infact assert Android to be a J2ME superset... because it happens to implement these classes... yes... it really does have the likes of the "java.lang", "java.io", and "java.util" packages, and a good deal more as well...