Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #4691 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-29 12:48 +1200 |
| Last post | 2011-06-02 03:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-29 12:48 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-28 21:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-29 16:56 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-28 23:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-29 09:32 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 12:45 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 19:49 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 16:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 22:37 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:12 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 01:03 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:13 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 03:58 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 23:20 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-29 19:52 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 16:20 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-30 01:14 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 00:33 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:54 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 03:26 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:09 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 13:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 15:55 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 16:32 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 18:10 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:56 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-31 11:10 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 07:13 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 12:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 08:00 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 13:33 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 09:29 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 17:13 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 21:09 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 09:27 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 22:25 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:11 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 07:59 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 15:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 15:05 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-01 00:58 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 03:21 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:40 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:06 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 16:04 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:42 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-02 11:54 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 15:08 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-02 20:50 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 17:34 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-02 23:20 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-03 18:43 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 08:27 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:02 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 22:24 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:29 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-06 14:15 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-07 13:59 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-08 12:55 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 06:18 -0300
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 07:06 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:25 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-08 10:56 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-08 14:09 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:46 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:08 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:40 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:46 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:23 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-07 13:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-08 12:55 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-06 11:21 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 13:40 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-07 10:16 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 01:30 -0700
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-06-02 10:35 +0100
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 03:32 -0700
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-02 11:07 -0400
Re: Android�Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 10:07 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:38 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:48 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 09:31 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:14 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:23 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 19:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 11:59 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:44 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 11:11 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:10 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 20:38 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-08 17:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-08 23:41 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:38 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-12 16:59 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-15 14:01 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 22:46 -0700
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:39 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-06-03 22:38 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 22:12 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:54 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-05-31 14:25 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 08:02 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 14:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 11:33 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-31 19:43 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-01 15:03 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-31 20:15 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-01 01:04 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 03:30 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 10:05 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-03 11:16 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:36 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:14 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:47 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:40 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 12:09 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-09 07:55 -0300
Re: Swing versus Windows.Forms Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-12 17:11 -0300
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 13:43 -0400
Re: Android---Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-11 14:57 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 13:05 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:13 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-03 21:52 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-04 02:52 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-05 15:45 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-05 01:04 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 18:52 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-06-06 01:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 23:05 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-06-06 06:32 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 11:19 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:21 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:30 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-07 06:53 -0300
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:37 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-07 12:26 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 19:12 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-03 17:42 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-03 18:48 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 10:51 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 12:10 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 18:47 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-04 16:00 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 22:01 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-05 23:28 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-06 06:25 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 01:45 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-08 21:46 +0530
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 12:08 -0700
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:16 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:32 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Tobias Blass <tobiasblass@gmx.net> - 2011-06-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-06-05 14:55 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-05 14:53 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 18:50 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> - 2011-06-11 23:56 +0530
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:38 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-07 13:34 +0000
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-06-07 13:56 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-07 16:47 +0000
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:53 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 19:14 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 22:26 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 18:45 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-30 15:25 -0400
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:46 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 11:50 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-30 20:16 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:50 +1200
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 12:44 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 17:26 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 00:04 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:11 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 00:30 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 19:53 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-05-30 01:28 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:12 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 02:35 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-30 11:26 -0400
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 11:48 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 17:16 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-31 13:48 +1200
Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? David Segall <david@address.invalid> - 2011-06-01 00:54 +1000
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-05-31 08:05 -0700
Re: Android?Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 01:57 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-05-30 22:30 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2011-05-31 09:42 +0100
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:17 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:21 +0200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-02 19:34 +1200
Re: Android—Why Dalvik? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 03:43 -0700
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 12:48 +1200 |
| Subject | Android—Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <irs55g$acb$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
The Android Builders Summit <http://free-electrons.com/blog/abs-2011-videos/> had some interesting presentations, in particular Karim Yaghmour’s delving into the internals of Android, and Aleksander Gargenta’s “A Walk Through The Android Stack”. From 48:00 onwards, Gargenta explains why Android uses the Dalvik VM instead of the Java VM. * Why not Java SE? Too bloated, not suitable for low-power applications. * Why not Java ME? Too expensive, everything runs in one VM => lousy security. And you don’t get the necessary hardware access. Dalvik is purpose-built from the ground up; its .dex code is, even uncompressed, slightly smaller than a compressed .jar file. This simplifies class loading—a .apk file can be opened and mmap’d, and the code is ready for execution. (This is why zipalign is so important when building an Android app.) Dalvik is also register-based, not stack based, for higher performance.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 21:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <aki3u65e031f0n41s9696v7c223npiu4ru@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4691 |
On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:48:48 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >Dalvik is also register-based, not stack based, for higher performance. I'll make some guesses. Dalvik was designed solely for a family of CPUs with similar RAM. Oracle Java wanted to run everywhere. With Oracle Java, the licence forces users to provide the full enchilada. I suspect with Dalvik they were able to prune it back just to what they needed. They are doing the old IBM lockin game. They don't want Android apps running elsewhere or being easily ported there. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com How long did it take after the car was invented before owners understood cars would not work unless you regularly changed the oil and the tires? We have gone 33 years and still it is rare to uncover a user who understands computers don't work without regular backups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 16:56 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irsjma$ig8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4693 |
In message <aki3u65e031f0n41s9696v7c223npiu4ru@4ax.com>, Roedy Green wrote: > They are doing the old IBM lockin game. They don't want Android apps > running elsewhere or being easily ported there. Android is already running on a bewildering variety of devices—e-book readers, game console, media players, TVs, smartphones and tablets (of course)—even a washing machine. There have been a number of devices that dual-boot between Android and Windows; there is even a company looking at implementing it as a stack running directly on top of Windows (good luck to them). There is no “lockin” anywhere. Android is being so wildly successful precisely because it is so open and flexible. Google may not be keen on all the things being done with it, but the beauty of it is it’s not their decision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irsodu$jp7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4694 |
On 5/28/2011 9:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<aki3u65e031f0n41s9696v7c223npiu4ru@4ax.com>, Roedy Green wrote: > >> They are doing the old IBM lockin game. They don't want Android apps >> running elsewhere or being easily ported there. > > Android is already running on a bewildering variety of devices—e-book > readers, game console, media players, TVs, smartphones and tablets (of > course)—even a washing machine. There have been a number of devices that > dual-boot between Android and Windows; there is even a company looking at > implementing it as a stack running directly on top of Windows (good luck to > them). > > There is no “lockin” anywhere. Android is being so wildly successful > precisely because it is so open and flexible. Google may not be keen on all > the things being done with it, but the beauty of it is it’s not their > decision. Hello; I do not know anything about Andriod version of Java. But if one writes an Andriod application, can one take the Java source code and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say window 7 or linux or the mac? thanks --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 09:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <irthto$gmk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4695 |
Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > I do not know anything about Andriod [sic] version of Java. But if one > writes an Andriod [sic] application, can one take the Java source code > and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say > window 7 or linux [sic] or the mac [sic]? Not unless one has the API ported to the other platforms. Even during compilation Java requires that class references be satisfied, and of course those libraries must be present to run the code. Side note (that doesn't affect your question, really): there is more than one "standard" Java. One assumes you mean Java SE, and further, a current version thereof. -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4698 |
On 5/29/2011 6:32 AM, Lew wrote: > Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> I do not know anything about Andriod [sic] version of Java. But if one >> writes an Andriod [sic] application, can one take the Java source code >> and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say >> window 7 or linux [sic] or the mac [sic]? > > Not unless one has the API ported to the other platforms. Even during > compilation Java requires that class references be satisfied, and of > course those libraries must be present to run the code. > > Side note (that doesn't affect your question, really): there is more > than one "standard" Java. One assumes you mean Java SE, and further, a > current version thereof. > yep, there is always J2ME, and then one can define anything beyond this as "extensions"... granted, a "Java" which is basically just J2ME with everything else done via proprietary APIs wouldn't likely appeal to most expecting Java SE style functionality, even keeping the trademark intact. "well, it has the Java 1.1 core language, and the packages java.lang and parts of java.io and java.util..." potential developer: "but what about AWT and Swing and these other APIs I might want to use?" response: "well, for these things you use our vastly improved foo.gui.manager (it has Pointy/Clicky TM) and other custom APIs...". at this point it would likely start to look a bit like someone trying simply to use the Java trademark as a selling point. or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 12:45 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irupc4$qki$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4700 |
In message <irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > ... there is always J2ME ... Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out earlier. > potential developer: "but what about AWT and Swing and these other APIs > I might want to use?" > response: "well, for these things you use our vastly improved > foo.gui.manager (it has Pointy/Clicky TM) and other custom APIs...". > > at this point it would likely start to look a bit like someone trying > simply to use the Java trademark as a selling point. Which Google has been careful to avoid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4705 |
On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, 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, as generally people implement the core VM and libraries, and anything after this is presumably whatever they want to put in there... so, it is basically like J2SE but without the requirement to implement piles of classes which may / may not be applicable to the target. but, if one just uses J2ME by itself, or is trying to write portable apps targeting it, it is not so nice, as it doesn't ensure all the usual standard features... much like if one were trying to target a system which only had the C89 standard library and maybe a few OS-specific libraries and nothing else... >> potential developer: "but what about AWT and Swing and these other APIs >> I might want to use?" >> response: "well, for these things you use our vastly improved >> foo.gui.manager (it has Pointy/Clicky TM) and other custom APIs...". >> >> at this point it would likely start to look a bit like someone trying >> simply to use the Java trademark as a selling point. > > Which Google has been careful to avoid. yep, probably fair enough...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 16:21 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irv612$23f$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4708 |
In message <irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> ... there is always J2ME ... >> >> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out earlier. > > well, it can be used as a starting point ... I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a “starting point”.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvak5$lnt$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4711 |
On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, 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... for example, one can write their own version of the JVM, with their own class libraries, and their own version of the compiler, ... whether or not this is more or less effort than designing a language and VM clean is a matter of debate though, as there are merits and drawbacks either way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 19:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvg10$7mj$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4718 |
In message <irvak5$lnt$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvj6c$774$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4722 |
On 5/30/2011 12:12 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irvak5$lnt$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message<irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, 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...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 22:13 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvqkd$dtn$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4727 |
In message <irvj6c$774$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/30/2011 12:12 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irvak5$lnt$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> In message<irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... there is always J2ME ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out >>>>>> earlier. >>>>> >>>>> well, it can be used as a starting point ... >>>> >>>> I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a >>>> “starting point”. >>>> >>> no, not using code, but using its spec, and writing something according >>> to the spec... >> >> But the J2ME spec is unsuited to ultramobile devices, as pointed out >> earlier. > > if you say it is "unsuitable" then it is sort of expected to say in > which ways it is unsuitable... Already done. See the posting that started this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 03:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvtet$t5f$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4732 |
On 5/30/2011 3:13 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irvj6c$774$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> On 5/30/2011 12:12 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message<irvak5$lnt$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message<irv0op$kde$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In message<irtu02$bso$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... there is always J2ME ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out >>>>>>> earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> well, it can be used as a starting point ... >>>>> >>>>> I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a >>>>> “starting point”. >>>>> >>>> no, not using code, but using its spec, and writing something according >>>> to the spec... >>> >>> But the J2ME spec is unsuited to ultramobile devices, as pointed out >>> earlier. >> >> if you say it is "unsuitable" then it is sort of expected to say in >> which ways it is unsuitable... > > Already done. See the posting that started this thread. > I looked, and these are not solid answers, in that no real basis is given apart from plain assertions, and would if-anything, be taken as an argument against some particular implementation, rather than against the spec that exists (the spec for what the spec says), which is essentially just an API reference for a list of classes which would need to be provided by *an* implementation... so, it doesn't hold water... especially when, in this instance, it is typical that each implementer provides their own implementation, in which case, none of those original issues hold, as none are, in-fact, mandated by the spec. one can infact assert Android to be a J2ME superset... because it happens to implement these classes... yes... it really does have the likes of the "java.lang", "java.io", and "java.util" packages, and a good deal more as well...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 23:20 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvuhj$fv1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4736 |
In message <irvtet$t5f$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/30/2011 3:13 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<irvj6c$774$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> if you say [J2ME] 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 ... “Too expensive” — seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s either right or wrong; to settle it, just let us know what the licensing cost for J2ME is. “Everything runs in one VM => lousy security” — that’s pretty obvious, too. If it isn’t clear to you, might I point out that, under Android, every app runs under its own user ID? So you get the standard user privilege separations provided by the Linux kernel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 19:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <hg16u61tr4spfqhaqqgmkhrf35m9ue830p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4695 |
On Sat, 28 May 2011 23:17:31 -0700, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I do not know anything about Andriod version of Java. But if one >writes an Andriod application, can one take the Java source code >and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say >window 7 or linux or the mac? The big problem is the UI is quite different. Android does not support anything that looks like AWT or Swing. I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard java so you can run Android apps there. Going the other way would be difficult since there is only 1 GB of RAM to play with. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com How long did it take after the car was invented before owners understood cars would not work unless you regularly changed the oil and the tires? We have gone 33 years and still it is rare to uncover a user who understands computers don't work without regular backups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 16:20 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irv5uo$23f$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4709 |
In message <hg16u61tr4spfqhaqqgmkhrf35m9ue830p@4ax.com>, Roedy Green wrote: > The big problem is the UI is quite different. There being reasons for that. > I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard > java so you can run Android apps there. And what would that achieve? What platform would ship with this “standard Java”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 01:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <irv93d$is4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4710 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: >> The big problem is the UI is quite different. > There being reasons for that. What are they, Lawrence? Do you know? >> I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard >> java [sic] so you can run Android apps there. > And what would that achieve? What platform would ship with this “standard > Java”? Any platform that ships with standard Java. I think Linux would be a likely candidate, as it's what Darvik runs on already. Google already has put out such a port. I've been running Darvik or something much like it to which the Android libraries have already been ported, by Google or someone with Google's cooperation, on my desktop Ubuntu box for some time now. I downloaded it from Google. Does that answer your question - - - - - Lawrence? -- Lew Honi soit qui mal y pense. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 00:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284ce826ee59e4e9989769@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4695 |
In article <irsodu$jp7$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi says... > Hello; > > I do not know anything about Andriod version of Java. But if one > writes an Andriod application, can one take the Java source code > and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say > window 7 or linux or the mac? You write Android apps in Java (with the exception of some low-level code which is written in C; I understand that's mostly done for games). The code that manages the UI, file and USB I/O, and other stuff is different. But if you already know Java, you've got a good headstart towards learning how to develope Android apps. That said, no, you can't run Android apps on anything other than an emulator or a device that actually runs Android. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 19:54 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <irvift$98d$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4724 |
In message <MPG.284ce826ee59e4e9989769@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > You write Android apps in Java (with the exception of some low-level > code which is written in C; I understand that's mostly done for games). I see a lot of portable software also done in C. For example, the Python and other interpreters used in the Scripting Layer for Android <http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/> are largely unchanged C code from their versions on other platforms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web