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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 03:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <irvris$orf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4726 |
On 5/30/2011 12:54 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > 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. > yeah... C source code generally doesn't need to change that much between one target and another (after all, most variations in OS and architecture can be trivially handled via #ifdef magic). the main issue is mostly that of needing to be rebuilt for each OS and CPU, since binary code is generally not portable between targets... this is not a huge issue, but it is still annoying. granted, it is interesting that this is more generally seen as an OS issue than a language or technology issue... "well, this is a Windows' app, of course it doesn't work on Mac or Linux...", despite that all 3 versions will likely build from the same source. granted, many projects are distributed in source-form, but this has its own set of drawbacks (not everything is ideally distributed as source code). would be nice if compiling C to ByteCode and using a JIT at the target site were a little more commonplace... granted, yes, compiling C to a portable bytecode and remaining strictly conforming with the ISO C standards itself poses a few problems, but these can be fudged (C can work here, just some things need to be "reinterpreted" slightly...). (as-imagined, the compiler would likely look a bit strange if compared against a more traditional compiler, but I don't feel like going into this at the moment...). I don't expect C will go away either though, as it itself has a few of its own sets of merits. MS sort of did something half-assed with C++/CLI, but C++/CLI manages to produce IL that is itself not terribly portable... I also am left with a "sour taste" regarding .NET in general... although, in many ways I like C# and .NET more in a purely technical sense, most things going on with it are in general much less appealing (.NET is unencumbered in roughly the same way that a Chia Pet is free to roam about a tabletop...). so, what will the future hold?...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 11:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284d80d0fd1becca98976b@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4734 |
In article <irvris$orf$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB says... > "well, this is a Windows' app, of course it doesn't work on Mac or > Linux...", despite that all 3 versions will likely build from the same > source. I'd bet, these days, that the root cause of that situation is the fact that the three operating systems have *completely* different GUI's. And actually, Linux alone has *two* (more than two, technically, but only two popular ones) You have the Windows UI, the Cocoa UI on Mac, and KDE or Gnome running under X11 on Linux. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 13:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is0to0$b1k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4740 |
On 5/30/2011 11:24 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<irvris$orf$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB says...
>
>
>> "well, this is a Windows' app, of course it doesn't work on Mac or
>> Linux...", despite that all 3 versions will likely build from the same
>> source.
>
> I'd bet, these days, that the root cause of that situation is the fact
> that the three operating systems have *completely* different GUI's.
>
for source compatibility, yes, cross-platform GUI is a big issue.
for binary compatibility, the much bigger issue is the lack of a common
set of binary formats, as well as different CPU architectures and
operating modes.
a VM could address this.
> And actually, Linux alone has *two* (more than two, technically, but
> only two popular ones)
>
> You have the Windows UI, the Cocoa UI on Mac, and KDE or Gnome running
> under X11 on Linux.
>
granted...
my ideas for running C in a bytecoded VM, also just happened to include
ways of basically delaying final type specialization, many cases of
handling "#ifdef" blocks, ... until JIT time.
but, I don't believe this to be insurmountable with a VM.
granted, it is not as simple as with a homogeneous environment say like
the Java/JVM model, since this would reasonably need to deal with a good
deal more inter-OS variations (and still leaves the issue that code
which is not written in a portable way, will still not be portable).
but, if the VM can do its part, this at least is a start.
so, say, things like:
#ifdef _WIN32
void MyApp_SomeWindowsFunction()
{
...
}
#endif
#ifdef linux
void MyApp_SomeLinuxFunction()
{
...
}
#endif
void MyApp_SomeFunction()
{
...
#ifdef _WIN32
MyApp_SomeWindowsFunction();
#endif
...
#ifdef linux
MyApp_SomeLinuxFunction();
#endif
...
}
would delay handling of the ifdef blocks until one is compiling the code
in the JIT.
in my prior VM design, this had generally worked by internally
transforming many of these ifdef conditionals into attributes, where the
attribute would be a JIT-time conditional (whether or not to include a
given code-block).
typically, statement-level ifdefs were handled by folding the code into
its own block, which shares lexical bindings with the parent.
a restriction to all this though was that #ifdef and similar had to
follow proper block nesting, which is not true of true C ifdef's.
related restrictions also existed on the use of macros, ...
likewise, not all types could be entirely known at compile-time, and so
the JIT would have to handle some amount of the type-specialization, ...
or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 13:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is0vhm$ha$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4757 |
On 5/30/2011 1:09 PM, BGB wrote:
>
> for source compatibility, yes, cross-platform GUI is a big issue.
>
>
> for binary compatibility, the much bigger issue is the lack of a common
> set of binary formats, as well as different CPU architectures and
> operating modes.
>
> a VM could address this.
>
>
The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to
solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the
application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common
virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different
OS's below it.
But now it seems we have different virtual OS's also coming out.
So, I have an brilliant solution I'd like to suggest:
we need is a SUPER VM
A super virtual OS, is a virtual OS which runs on top of a
virtual OS.
i.e. the super VM, hides which VM it is running under, so it
runs on top of all the other VM's:
SUPER VM
Java VM, Google VM, Windows NET VM, etc..
WINDOWS, LINUX, Mac, VMS, etc..
This offourse, until one comes up with a different version of the
SUPER VM, then we go and make a SUPER SUPPER VM. So we need
to make sure this time, that we have provisions in place to
prevent someone from making a different SUPER VM.
I would like to go patent this now.
--Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 15:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is17fl$viv$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4766 |
On 5/30/2011 1:43 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 5/30/2011 1:09 PM, BGB wrote:
>
>>
>> for source compatibility, yes, cross-platform GUI is a big issue.
>>
>>
>> for binary compatibility, the much bigger issue is the lack of a common
>> set of binary formats, as well as different CPU architectures and
>> operating modes.
>>
>> a VM could address this.
>>
>>
>
> The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to
> solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the
> application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common
> virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different
> OS's below it.
>
> But now it seems we have different virtual OS's also coming out.
>
> So, I have an brilliant solution I'd like to suggest:
>
> we need is a SUPER VM
>
> A super virtual OS, is a virtual OS which runs on top of a
> virtual OS.
>
> i.e. the super VM, hides which VM it is running under, so it
> runs on top of all the other VM's:
>
> SUPER VM
> Java VM, Google VM, Windows NET VM, etc..
> WINDOWS, LINUX, Mac, VMS, etc..
>
> This offourse, until one comes up with a different version of the
> SUPER VM, then we go and make a SUPER SUPPER VM. So we need
> to make sure this time, that we have provisions in place to
> prevent someone from making a different SUPER VM.
>
> I would like to go patent this now.
>
well, IMO, trying to homogenize the environment is itself a problem...
this is actually part of what I think is a weak-point of the JVM strategy:
they try to gloss over the real OS/... by basically creating a new layer
of abstractions, and wrapping everything in the new API.
to many OS's? make a "one virtual OS to rule them all" (JVM).
too many languages? make a "one language to rule them all" (Java).
sadly, this strategy is prone to eventually show its limitations, as now
the VM/framework implementer has taken on the responsibility of
providing for pretty much any major feature the OS's might provide, and
that apps might want to make use of, and the issue of what features may
and may not exist on various targets, ...
my idea was less drastic:
rather than by creating an entirely new set of abstractions, one creates
a VM which is itself better suited to heterogeneous environments.
in C, we called this mechanism "#ifdef".
a new language can likewise devise newer, ifdef-like mechanisms.
for example, in my present language, this would be done something like:
$[ifdef(SOMEFEATURE)] public void someMethod()
{
...
}
and:
$[ifdef(SOMEFEATURE)]
{
...
}
where: $[...] is the present syntax for attributes (they started out
just as MS-style "[...]" attributes, but were more recently changed due
to the prior syntax creating syntactic ambiguity in some cases).
the advantage then, is that one doesn't have to provide as much, as for
any features not provided directly by the framework, well, one can go
back to the OS.
for example, I can make Win32 API calls from my scripting HLL, not
because I explicitly implemented support for Win32 API functionality,
but more because the VM can see all of the Win32 API functionality...
granted, yes, this same functionality will be absent if running on a
different OS, say, Linux, hence the need for an ifdef-like mechanism...
was recently though thinking of the issue like "maybe, you know, my
language might need some sort of standard library...". since, as-is,
nearly everything I have been doing API-wise has basically been via
making calls into C.
if by some chance a JVM port were made of the VM, then pretty much
everything would have to redirect to the Java class library instead.
lacking a defined API of some sort, this could be a little ugly.
but, then I have to come up with what the API should look like.
I could do nested packages and classes, or I could do it more like a
pseudo C style (maybe with packages and a lot of package-level
functions). it is... a decision...
my present personal leaning is mostly to do things C style, with
classes/... for some things, but not as the main style.
but, also possible would be to just partly rip off the design of the
Java class library... Packages: "bs.lang", "bs.io", "bs.util", ...
albeit I would probably diverge somewhat WRT the "io" package,
personally as I can't see just why there needs to be so many classes in
there, and would much rather assume doing file IO in a more C-like manner...
for example:
import bs.io;
void loadSomething()
{
File fd;
string[] sarr;
fd=File.open("foo.txt", "rt");
while(!fd.eof)
{
sarr=fd.gets().split();
if(!sarr[0])continue;
if(*sarr[0]==';')continue;
switch(sarr[0])
{
case "foo": ... break;
case "bar": ... break;
default: ... break;
}
}
}
past ideas here have also included putting all standard exceptions into
their own package, but there is not as much reason to do so with my
language, partly because I can put multiple classes into a single file
and so they are less liable to clutter up the package.
or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 16:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is19e0$pae$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4770 |
On 5/30/2011 3:55 PM, BGB wrote: > > my idea was less drastic: > rather than by creating an entirely new set of abstractions, one creates > a VM which is itself better suited to heterogeneous environments. > > in C, we called this mechanism "#ifdef". > a new language can likewise devise newer, ifdef-like mechanisms. > I know all about #ifdef. One a project long time ago, I worked on porting Netscape web server source code, it would build for I think 18 different platforms. Most of these are flavors of Unix, few flavors of windows, and OS2 and such. The same source code, 18 or so different build targets. Just understanding the makefiles, never mind the 2 million lines or so source code with the #ifdefs in them, was a nightmare :) The same was for the Netscape browser code. Java is supposed to solve all this #ifdef stuff. --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 18:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is1fbi$98h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4771 |
On 5/30/2011 4:32 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/30/2011 3:55 PM, BGB wrote: > >> >> my idea was less drastic: >> rather than by creating an entirely new set of abstractions, one creates >> a VM which is itself better suited to heterogeneous environments. >> >> in C, we called this mechanism "#ifdef". >> a new language can likewise devise newer, ifdef-like mechanisms. >> > > I know all about #ifdef. One a project long time ago, > I worked on porting Netscape web server source code, it would > build for I think 18 different platforms. Most of these are > flavors of Unix, few flavors of windows, and OS2 and such. > > The same source code, 18 or so different build targets. > > Just understanding the makefiles, never mind the 2 million > lines or so source code with the #ifdefs in them, was a > nightmare :) > > The same was for the Netscape browser code. > yeah. but, the #ifdef's and makefiles work fairly well IME... millions of lines of code, and it all still goes strong. #ifdef's and parallel sets of makefiles (and/or alternative build systems) are just part of the game. > Java is supposed to solve all this #ifdef stuff. but, at what cost?... it is worth noting that the Java class library is... rather large... and that also it tends to behave more like a "second class citizen" on many OS's. it is also a bit painful trying to work with OS-level functionality, and neither JNI or JNA are particularly friendly in these regards. also, mixed-language apps (mixed C / C++ and Java) are often a bit painful as well. granted, yes, a VM probably can and should gloss over what it reasonably can from the OS (providing common APIs for many things, possibly providing a simpler build system, ...), just I don't think it is worthwhile to try to be an all-encompassing platform either. also, it makes sense to allow that a common VM if being used in different situations may be able to provide additional functionality, or not provide certain functionality, and being able to handle this more cleanly/easily is a good thing IMO. also, the class libraries themselves may have to deal a fair amount with OS-specific quirks. hence, an ifdef-like system is a powerful tool, IMO. well, along with a reasonably powerful native FFI... or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:56 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1hrv$dmh$5@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4771 |
In message <is19e0$pae$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > Just understanding the makefiles, never mind the 2 million > lines or so source code with the #ifdefs in them, was a > nightmare :) Didn’t you have GNU autoconf to deal with all of that for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 11:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <is30d8$5fl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4784 |
On 05/30/2011 09:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is19e0$pae$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > >> Just understanding the makefiles, never mind the 2 million >> lines or so source code with the #ifdefs in them, was a >> nightmare :) > > Didn’t you have GNU autoconf to deal with all of that for you? Understanding GNU autoconf is half the battle. It's written in a macro language no one really understands, so half the code is copy-pasted. Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 07:13 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3elm$hoh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4798 |
In message <is30d8$5fl$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/30/2011 09:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<is19e0$pae$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> >>> Just understanding the makefiles, never mind the 2 million >>> lines or so source code with the #ifdefs in them, was a >>> nightmare :) >> >> Didn’t you have GNU autoconf to deal with all of that for you? > > Understanding GNU autoconf is half the battle. It's written in a macro > language no one really understands, so half the code is copy-pasted. I wouldn’t say that. I maintain one modest project that uses it <https://github.com/ldo/dvdauthor>, and I’ve been able to make a bunch of changes and improvements to its use of autoconf just from reading the documentation. And yes, I have made direct use of m4 in other projects. > Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. > It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. Still better than anything Java can offer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 12:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4808 |
In article <is3elm$hoh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > Still better than anything Java can offer. The whole point of Java is that you are compiling to platform-neutral bytecode, and running on a virtual machine. The maintainer of the virtual machine has to worry about the OS- and architecture-specific stuff. You don't. A very similar idea exists with Mono. Now, Lawrence, since I know you are going to argue the point :) I want to point out that platform-independence is the primary *goal* that Mono and Java set out to attain. Are they 100% successful? Probably not. Are they reasonably successful? Can't speak for Mono as I haven't really used it yet, but I believe that Java is. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 08:00 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is3hd7$j4p$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4811 |
In message <MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <is3elm$hoh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > >> Still better than anything Java can offer. > > The whole point of Java is that you are compiling to platform-neutral > bytecode, and running on a virtual machine. Which is a lousy way of doing it. > The maintainer of the virtual machine has to worry about the OS- and > architecture-specific stuff. You don't. In other words, Java code cannot be ported to a platform until the Java system itself has been ported. And what is the Java system written in?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284ef08bcf13105e989771@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4813 |
In article <is3hd7$j4p$3@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > In message <MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > > > In article <is3elm$hoh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > > >> Still better than anything Java can offer. > > > > The whole point of Java is that you are compiling to platform-neutral > > bytecode, and running on a virtual machine. > > Which is a lousy way of doing it. > > > The maintainer of the virtual machine has to worry about the OS- and > > architecture-specific stuff. You don't. > > In other words, Java code cannot be ported to a platform until the Java > system itself has been ported. And what is the Java system written in? C/C++. If I'm not mistaken. :) You make a valid point. On the other hand, unless I'm doing something rather esoteric or I need access to hardware (e.g. USB ports), the Java "write once, run just about anywhere" model works quite well for me. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 09:29 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3mjc$m2h$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4817 |
In message <MPG.284ef08bcf13105e989771@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <is3hd7$j4p$3@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >> >> In message <MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol >> wrote: >> >> > In article <is3elm$hoh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >> > >> >> Still better than anything Java can offer. >> > >> > The whole point of Java is that you are compiling to platform-neutral >> > bytecode, and running on a virtual machine. >> >> Which is a lousy way of doing it. >> >> > The maintainer of the virtual machine has to worry about the OS- and >> > architecture-specific stuff. You don't. >> >> In other words, Java code cannot be ported to a platform until the Java >> system itself has been ported. And what is the Java system written in? > > C/C++. If I'm not mistaken. :) > > You make a valid point. On the other hand, unless I'm doing something > rather esoteric or I need access to hardware (e.g. USB ports), the Java > "write once, run just about anywhere" model works quite well for me. Piggybacking on top of the C/C++ system, which is self-hosting and self- porting. “Write once, run everywhere” is more true of C than it is of Java; a portable compiler like GCC means C is the most portable language in the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 17:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284f0247d7810b42989773@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4822 |
In article <is3mjc$m2h$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > Piggybacking on top of the C/C++ system, which is self-hosting and self- > porting. > > ?Write once, run everywhere? is more true of C than it is of Java; a > portable compiler like GCC means C is the most portable language in the > world. That is utter, unmitigated, complete bullshit. Self-porting? Seriously? -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 22:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <slrniuapds.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4817 |
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> In article <is3hd7$j4p$3@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says...
>> In message <MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote:
>> > 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?
> C/C++. If I'm not mistaken. :)
The question is not, what the JVM is written in, but *who* does the porting
work to a particular new platform.
If you've just designed a new microprocessor and need to get a specific
program to run on it, then chances are high, that porting a small C-program
to the new platform's peculiarities will be easier, than to port the whole
JVM to it (and have the program written in Java). Oh, and you'd probably
need a C-compiler ported to it anyway, so I wasn't mentioning it for the
comparison.
If, on the other hand, all of the interesting platforms already have a
Java on it (ported by someone else) then doing the program in Java could
well be the better choice.
My impression is, that Android typically runs on hw-platforms
- with a relatively small screen (both: physically and pixels) and no
normal keyboard. (Even though you could pair it with a bluetooth
keyboard, you wouldn't have one with you, most of the time.)
- with a multi-touch-sensitive touch-screen, that can deal with
two (or more) fingers touching it at the same time and with
varying pressure.
- which don't know the concept of "hovering" above a gadget (for
tooltips) or alternative-button clicks (for context menus)
Whereas Java (J2SE) would typically run on hw-platforms that would be
characterized by logically inverting each of the items above.
Any *GUI* app, that might conceivably run on both types of platforms, would
either be really two-separate-apps-in-one, or suck terribly on at least one
of these platforms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 16:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is3sid$2fb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4824 |
On 5/31/2011 3:03 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Steve Sobol<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote: >> In article<is3hd7$j4p$3@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >>> In message<MPG.284ee4d9c3308bd798976f@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: >>>> 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? >> C/C++. If I'm not mistaken. :) > > The question is not, what the JVM is written in, but *who* does the porting > work to a particular new platform. > > If you've just designed a new microprocessor and need to get a specific > program to run on it, then chances are high, that porting a small C-program > to the new platform's peculiarities will be easier, than to port the whole > JVM to it (and have the program written in Java). Oh, and you'd probably > need a C-compiler ported to it anyway, so I wasn't mentioning it for the > comparison. > well, the C compiler need not be necessarily ported to it, since very often with such small embedded systems, one cross-compiles to them. then one just needs a C compiler which targets the given CPU architecture in use, which may well be a bit easier than getting something more big and complex (such as a VM framework) ported to it. > If, on the other hand, all of the interesting platforms already have a > Java on it (ported by someone else) then doing the program in Java could > well be the better choice. > it depends a lot on the type of app though, such as how effectively, or portably, the thing that needs to be done can be implemented purely or mostly in Java. for example, Minecraft was written primarily in Java, but still depends somewhat on special-purpose native interfaces (such as LWJGL) to expose more OS-level functionality (OpenGL, sound, lower-level keyboard/mouse input, ...). about at the time JNI starts really coming into the picture, then things start looking a little less pretty. mapping DirectX to Java would also be a bit problematic. but, yeah, for a vanilla GUI app, Java makes a good deal of sense (well, along with C#, but C# is mostly only really ideal for very quick/dirty GUI apps where one doesn't care so much about non-Windows targets). > My impression is, that Android typically runs on hw-platforms > - with a relatively small screen (both: physically and pixels) and no > normal keyboard. (Even though you could pair it with a bluetooth > keyboard, you wouldn't have one with you, most of the time.) > - with a multi-touch-sensitive touch-screen, that can deal with > two (or more) fingers touching it at the same time and with > varying pressure. > - which don't know the concept of "hovering" above a gadget (for > tooltips) or alternative-button clicks (for context menus) > > Whereas Java (J2SE) would typically run on hw-platforms that would be > characterized by logically inverting each of the items above. > > Any *GUI* app, that might conceivably run on both types of platforms, would > either be really two-separate-apps-in-one, or suck terribly on at least one > of these platforms. > "wut?... so you are saying I can't reasonably use 3DS Max on a cell phone?". but, yeah, fair enough. it does pose a bit of a UI design problem, as UIs which are well suited to a desktop PC are not necessarily as well suited to smaller screens or keyboards (sometimes even laptops, for example if the app has lots of on-screen items/information/... and/or makes heavy use of keyboard shortcuts). whereas UI designs which work well on cellphones (such as the usual NxN tiled icons, ...) would look silly on a laptop or desktop (either the buttons are comically huge, or one has a giant scrolling desktop, neither of which makes all that much sense). so, yeah, probably difference sorts of UI designs are needed... as to whether or not this would be a case of "two apps in one" would likely depend more on the nature of the app, and possibly how central the UI design is to its operation. or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrniuam7g.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4808 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <is30d8$5fl$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. >> It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. > Still better than anything Java can offer. This is now about Java versus C, isn't it? Java has one big advantage: The compiled thing is typically still "portable". For this, it would "need" to do any OS-#ifdef'ery at runtime, anyway, not at compile-time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 09:27 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3mg2$m2h$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4818 |
In message <slrniuam7g.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <is30d8$5fl$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. >>> It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. >> Still better than anything Java can offer. > > This is now about Java versus C, isn't it? > Java has one big advantage: The compiled thing is typically still > "portable". For this, it would "need" to do any OS-#ifdef'ery at > runtime, anyway, not at compile-time. But isn’t Java supposed to be “statically” typed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 22:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrniuaqn6.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4821 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <slrniuam7g.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>, Andreas Leitgeb > wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >>> In message <is30d8$5fl$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>>> Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. >>>> It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. >>> Still better than anything Java can offer. >> This is now about Java versus C, isn't it? >> Java has one big advantage: The compiled thing is typically still >> "portable". For this, it would "need" to do any OS-#ifdef'ery at >> runtime, anyway, not at compile-time. > But isn’t Java supposed to be “statically” typed? I'd guess it is, but fail to see what you're up to. What about Dalvik in this context? Is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web