Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Followup-To: comp.lang.java.programmer Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:00:39 +1200 Organization: Geek Central Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 118-92-86-36.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1306872039 19609 118.92.86.36 (31 May 2011 20:00:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 20:00:39 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4813 In message , Steve Sobol wrote: > In article , Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > >> Still better than anything Java can offer. > > The whole point of Java is that you are compiling to platform-neutral > bytecode, and running on a virtual machine. Which is a lousy way of doing it. > The maintainer of the virtual machine has to worry about the OS- and > architecture-specific stuff. You don't. In other words, Java code cannot be ported to a platform until the Java system itself has been ported. And what is the Java system written in?