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 | 13 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 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is1c79$3gt$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4773 |
On 5/30/2011 4:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS >> which is solidly good either... > > Except Android is kicking Microsoft’s arse. on cellphones... not seen any laptops or desktop PC's with Android though... it is more mixed-bag with tablets though... I had remotely considered getting a tablet which ran an Intel Atom and Windows 7, but I am not certain about blowing the $300 on it... also, there is the question of what exactly I would do with a tablet, besides maybe use it like a wacom, that can't be accomplished with a laptop or netbook (which I already have). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:48 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1he7$dmh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4776 |
In message <is1c79$3gt$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > On 5/30/2011 4:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS >>> which is solidly good either... >> >> Except Android is kicking Microsoft’s arse. > > on cellphones... On a whole range of ultramobile devices. In case you didn’t know, unit shipments of smartphones are now level-pegging with PCs, and will probably surpass them in the next quarter or two. Overall, ARM chips outsell x86 4:1, and the disparity is growing. > it is more mixed-bag with tablets though... Windows tablets are not selling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Segall <david@address.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 00:54 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: AndroidWhy Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <v9t9u6h45mgm3c5vmj0jv9i8i4q98jq8so@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4776 |
BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 5/30/2011 4:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message<is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS >>> which is solidly good either... >> >> Except Android is kicking Microsoft’s arse. > >on cellphones... > > >not seen any laptops or desktop PC's with Android though... Maybe not, but how many people need a laptop or a desktop? Perhaps the cell phone "is the computer" and it will plug into something else if people really want that. Motorola's Android <http://tinyurl.com/64ok49t> could be the beginning of the personal computer's future. I should add that my only knowledge of the Motorola Atrix is via the web site. I would appreciate comments from someone who has actually used one despite the fact that it would be way off-topic for this group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 08:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284ea3a0c4edbd4898976e@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4796 |
In article <v9t9u6h45mgm3c5vmj0jv9i8i4q98jq8so@4ax.com>, David Segall says... > > BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On 5/30/2011 4:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> > >>> sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS > >>> which is solidly good either... > >> > >> Except Android is kicking Microsoft?s arse. > > > >on cellphones... > > > > > >not seen any laptops or desktop PC's with Android though... > > Maybe not, but how many people need a laptop or a desktop? Lots of people, but more to the point, why would you want to run Android on a full-blown PC? -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is3cv4$3du$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4797 |
On 5/31/2011 8:05 AM, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article<v9t9u6h45mgm3c5vmj0jv9i8i4q98jq8so@4ax.com>, David Segall > says... >> >> BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/30/2011 4:48 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> In message<is0u74$cd8$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>>> >>>>> sadly, Linux has not entirely caught up to Windows WRT making an OS >>>>> which is solidly good either... >>>> >>>> Except Android is kicking Microsoft?s arse. >>> >>> on cellphones... >>> >>> >>> not seen any laptops or desktop PC's with Android though... >> >> Maybe not, but how many people need a laptop or a desktop? > > Lots of people, but more to the point, why would you want to run Android > on a full-blown PC? > yep... much like the XBox360, a cell phone is not really usable for coding, ... I did try using my netbook before, but given my projects' codebase used up nearly the entire HD (actually, a flash-ROM / SSD), and its very slow performance, this wasn't really workable either. thus, a full-sized laptop works much better, even though still sucking vs a full PC. to replace a laptop or desktop PC, would require a cell-phone with capabilities on par to a laptop or desktop. so, the task would partly be to have a cell phone which can run Doom3 and Quake4 with no lag, has multiple TB of storage space, ... right now (several years later, the requirements will be higher). a cell-phone with performance on-par with a computer from 10 years ago is not nearly as impressive from an "oh hell, I am going to replace my desktop" sense... (much like "oh yeah... time to break out the Win98 install CD..."). meanwhile, desktops are really good at sitting on ones' desktop, and being relatively powerful, so the desktop is like ones' "home base" of computing, and the laptop is like their "mobile camp". a cell-phone can be more mobile, but is unlikely to be able to replace the above if it is weaker than either of the above. hence, technology forms a gradient...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 01:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <irvmb2$do7$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4717 |
On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<irv04d$jga$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2011 5:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<irtsqa$9ae$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the
>>>> performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86 ...
>>>
>>> Which, interestingly, is not very popular for ultramobile devices.
>>>
>> now, maybe for RISC style targets things are faster ...
>
> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the
> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM.
>
snipping statements, using them out of context, and responding with
answers which don't make sense in context, well, this doesn't really buy
too many points...
but, anyways, I mostly use x86, and mostly on desktop PC and laptop
environments. x86 does what x86 does on PCs...
and, as for the performance profiles, it doesn't matter whether or not
x86 competes well with ARM in this market, only their respective
performance characteristics WRT a particular style of VM implementation.
on x86, there is not a lot of sway either way.
for ARM, who knows?... I am not an expert on ARM.
my guess is it may matter a lot more if typical ARM chips result in,
say, a relatively higher cost of indirect addressing or memory access
compared with register access, coupled with a larger number of HW registers.
I was explicitly allowing for this.
>>>> although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a
>>>> factor in a legal sense ...
>>>
>>> How come? Is the licence for the Sunacle JDK (which is what I use for
>>> compiling programs) violated in any way?
>>
>> apparently, Sun/Oracle is fairly fussy about who uses their trademark
>> and when, and basically they went and sued Google, IIRC (?), for using
>> their trademark in an unliscensed and partial implementation ...
>
> I don’t recall any trademarks being at issue in that suit.
>
I remember reading something to this effect though.
>> ... and for infringing on their patents.
>
> Which is a separate issue.
>
from the stuff I read, both issues came up in the same suit.
I suspect a major possible interpretation:
Google did their own VM, and claimed to support Java with it;
they didn't do things the proper Sun/Oracle way, and properly license
the VM, and not just omit the parts they didn't want to bother supporting.
Oracle rage-faced... and tried to put the hammer down...
had Google not used the Java trademark though, it is likely that Oracle
would not have done anything, since it would have essentially been (in a
mindshare sense) a different and unrelated piece of VM technology.
basically, it is mostly built on Apache's code, rather than the
Sun/Oracle code, so copyright doesn't work. also, the VM is a different
piece of technology from the JVM.
the link then is Java, but really, what is Java?...
mostly, it is its name and trademark...
most things that make up the core language: the syntax, semantics, ...
are all fairly generic:
a fair amount descends from C and C++;
some of the rest is variations on the above.
compilers are not really all that difficult to write (in the greater
scheme of things...).
also the libraries, which are distinctive mostly due to their particular
organization and the use of the word 'java' in most of the package
names, but are not themselves novel...
a language which looked like Java syntax-wise, and had a similar set of
APIs, would not likely have drawn much attention.
but, instead, Google endorsed Java itself...
this was very possibly near the core of the issue...
had it been called, say, GoogleC, and looked something like:
import goolglec.util.*;
public class MyApp
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println("Hello\n");
}
}
maybe... people would have been like "hey... this sort of looks like
Java...", but this would likely have been the end of it...
law is a funny thing sometimes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 22:30 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <irvrkv$eb4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4729 |
In message <irvmb2$do7$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > snipping statements ... *Sigh* I get this crap all the time from the clueless newbies. Let me explain to you something about USENET: my postings are to record what I said, not what you said. If I quote any part of you said, it is to give some context for what I said, nothing more. Rest assured if I reply to you I did read what you said, whether I quoted it or not. If I was ignoring what you said, I wouldn’t even bother replying to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is0uh8$d16$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4735 |
On 5/30/2011 3:30 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<irvmb2$do7$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> snipping statements ... > > *Sigh* I get this crap all the time from the clueless newbies. Let me > explain to you something about USENET: my postings are to record what I > said, not what you said. If I quote any part of you said, it is to give > some context for what I said, nothing more. > > Rest assured if I reply to you I did read what you said, whether I quoted > it or not. If I was ignoring what you said, I wouldn’t even bother replying > to you. > I have been using usenet for, what, 15 years... now, the problem with your quoting style is that it often seems to be being done in a way which obscures or misrepresents what the person who was being responded to actually said, as if one is trying to retroactively alter it and responding to this alteration instead of the original meaning. hence, this would appear to be a sort of trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 09:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0LCdncfWr7Z2NHnQnZ2dnUVZ7rOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #4691 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Dalvik is also register-based, not stack based, for higher performance. (chuckle) BugBear
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 09:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <is7ddu$r21$1@news.onet.pl> |
| In reply to | #4691 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > The Android Builders Summit > <http://free-electrons.com/blog/abs-2011-videos/> had some interesting > presentations, in particular Karim Yaghmour’s delving into the internals > of Android, and Aleksander Gargenta’s “A Walk Through The Android Stack”. > > From 48:00 onwards, Gargenta explains why Android uses the Dalvik VM > instead of the Java VM. > > * Why not Java SE? Too bloated, not suitable for low-power applications. > * Why not Java ME? Too expensive, everything runs in one VM => lousy > security. And you don’t get the necessary hardware access. There is also something called Java SE Embedded. Together with LWUIT it could be a great platform for mobile devices. The only real problem comparing to Android is not technical but simply licencing. > > Dalvik is purpose-built from the ground up; its .dex code is, even > uncompressed, slightly smaller than a compressed .jar file. This > simplifies class loading—a .apk file can be opened and mmap’d, and the > code is ready for execution. (This is why zipalign is so important when > building an Android app.) > > Dalvik is also register-based, not stack based, for higher performance. See: http://blogs.oracle.com/javaseembedded/entry/how_does_android_22s_performance_stack_up_against_java_se_embedded -- Michal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 09:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <is7dll$r21$2@news.onet.pl> |
| In reply to | #4878 |
Michal Kleczek wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> The Android Builders Summit >> <http://free-electrons.com/blog/abs-2011-videos/> had some interesting >> presentations, in particular Karim Yaghmour’s delving into the internals >> of Android, and Aleksander Gargenta’s “A Walk Through The Android Stack”. >> >> From 48:00 onwards, Gargenta explains why Android uses the Dalvik VM >> instead of the Java VM. >> >> * Why not Java SE? Too bloated, not suitable for low-power applications. >> * Why not Java ME? Too expensive, everything runs in one VM => lousy >> security. And you don’t get the necessary hardware access. > > There is also something called Java SE Embedded. Together with LWUIT it > could be a great platform for mobile devices. Or - better yet - JavaFX. BTW - long awaited JavaFX 2.0 Beta is available: http://javafx.com/downloads/all.jsp -- Michal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 19:34 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is7edv$qu2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4878 |
In message <is7ddu$r21$1@news.onet.pl>, Michal Kleczek wrote: > The only real problem comparing [Java SE Embedded] to Android is not > technical but simply licencing. Like the only real problem with pigs flying is simply gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 03:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is7pmm$93v$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4880 |
On 6/2/2011 12:34 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is7ddu$r21$1@news.onet.pl>, Michal Kleczek wrote: > >> The only real problem comparing [Java SE Embedded] to Android is not >> technical but simply licencing. > > Like the only real problem with pigs flying is simply gravity. note that Java SE Embedded was outperforming Dalvik on the linked-to benchmark... granted, yes, it would also be nice to see a comparison of things like memory footprint and similar, which could be a relevant factor in terms of comparisons, but was not provided in the linked benchmark.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web