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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is3ppp$u5t$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4818 |
On 5/31/2011 2:09 PM, 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. > note: it could be done at JIT-time, which is not strictly the same as run-time, since JIT-time operations need not involve runtime checks... however, yes, 'javac' in such a case would likely spit out code with every possible ifdef branch included, and then the classloader/JIT would discard any of the branches which are irrelevant to the given target. how this would "best" be done in a standard JVM is uncertain, but my VM (technically, not a JVM) basically handles it via block-folding and attributes (ifdef blocks are folded off into their own functions/methods, which are invisibly called by the parent method, with any dropped blocks having no-op calls). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is3emq$7m1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4798 |
On 5/31/2011 8:10 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/30/2011 09:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message<is19e0$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. > > Besides, all autoconf gets you is setting up the hundreds of #defines. > It does nothing else with respect to the #ifdef mess. > yeah, and it doesn't exactly tend to work well for non-Linux operating systems (such as Windows...). apparently its main point is mostly to deal with a lot of the internal inconsistency between the various Linux distros. hence, my personal preference for plain makefiles (with none of the autoconf mess). with care, one can get Windows+MSVC and Linux+GCC to work with pretty much the same core makefiles, reducing the pain of doing the whole parallel-makefile-tree thing. I guess there is also CMake and similar, but personally I have been a bit too lazy to bother with it (although not perfect, my makefiles work well enough, so it is hard to justify replacing them). personally, I have found it to be less effort to not bother excluding platform-specific source-files from the build, and instead make the files essentially no-op if not being compiled on the correct target. #include <mylibheader.h> #ifdef MY_OS_OF_INTEREST ... stuff ... #endif //EOF also, having headers which examine information generally already provided by the compiler (things like the OS, CPU architecture, ... are generally already provided by various defines, although typically they are compiler-specific, so it makes sense in the headers to "normalize them"), and thus setting up lots of relevant #defines. for example: #ifdef _MSC_VER #ifdef _M_IX86 #define X86 #define LITTLEENDIAN ... #endif #ifdef _M_IX64 #define X86_64 #define LITTLEENDIAN ... #endif ... #endif #ifdef __GNUC__ #ifdef __i386__ ... #endif ... #endif ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 07:59 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3haj$j4p$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4809 |
In message <is3emq$7m1$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > [autoconf] doesn't exactly tend to work well for non-Linux operating > systems (such as Windows...). It works just fine on a whole load of non-Linux operating systems, on a whole range of hardware platforms. Among modern OSes, Windows is really the only one left out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is3old$sb2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4812 |
On 5/31/2011 12:59 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is3emq$7m1$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> [autoconf] doesn't exactly tend to work well for non-Linux operating >> systems (such as Windows...). > > It works just fine on a whole load of non-Linux operating systems, on a > whole range of hardware platforms. Among modern OSes, Windows is really the > only one left out. I had also heard before that it tended not to work very well on OSX either, if anything, because many projects which use autoconf tend to also demand GTK, which from I heard doesn't tend to always work on OSX either. I had also heard about a lot of this not working so well for iOS either. granted though, I have no real personal experience trying to build stuff on OSX (or other Apple OS's), so I can't really verify a lot of this. but, my experience is mostly with Windows, where autoconf/configure tends not to even work much of the time with "blessed" environments, such as Cygwin and MinGW. also, it is another problem if one tends to use MSVC and needs to build with MSVC to use the library in a project compiled with MSVC. then one ends up using a custom makefile, and may observe that even "portable everywhere" / "pure ANSI C" code is still prone to contain the occasional GCC-specific extension here and there, or do other things which are prone to misbehave or blow up when building with MSVC (sharing 'FILE*' handles or malloc'ed memory between separately-compiled libraries, for example, ...). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 15:05 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is4a9i$1bh$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4825 |
In message <is3old$sb2$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > but, my experience is mostly with Windows, where autoconf/configure > tends not to even work much of the time with "blessed" environments, > such as Cygwin and MinGW. Free Software in general seems to be troublesome on Windows. > also, it is another problem if one tends to use MSVC and needs to build > with MSVC to use the library in a project compiled with MSVC ... Using MSVC brings its own share of problems. I remember on the Python group, if you wanted to build a C/C++ extension for Python, you had to compile it with the exact same version of MSVC as was used for that version of Python, otherwise it wouldn’t work. Windows as a whole just doesn’t seem to be set up for collaborative software development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 00:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <is4gtl$c2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4838 |
On 05/31/2011 11:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Using MSVC brings its own share of problems. I remember on the Python group, > if you wanted to build a C/C++ extension for Python, you had to compile it > with the exact same version of MSVC as was used for that version of Python, > otherwise it wouldn’t work. Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. With Java, it doesn't matter which compiler I use to link the binary, they all the do same thing. Even if I don't program my code in Java. ;-) Java has extreme ABI portability--any compiler, any OS, any arch. C is somewhat portable (between compilers on the same OS and arch), and C++ isn't very portable between compilers, particularly MSVC/gcc 3.x/gcc 4.x. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is541g$qjl$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4845 |
On 5/31/2011 9:58 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/31/2011 11:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> Using MSVC brings its own share of problems. I remember on the Python >> group, >> if you wanted to build a C/C++ extension for Python, you had to >> compile it >> with the exact same version of MSVC as was used for that version of >> Python, >> otherwise it wouldn’t work. > > Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. With Java, it > doesn't matter which compiler I use to link the binary, they all the do > same thing. Even if I don't program my code in Java. ;-) > > Java has extreme ABI portability--any compiler, any OS, any arch. C is > somewhat portable (between compilers on the same OS and arch), and C++ > isn't very portable between compilers, particularly MSVC/gcc 3.x/gcc 4.x. > yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations, I suspect often because compiler/ABI implementers are prone to try to micro-optimize things at the ABI level, leading to fussy special cases, and cases where the compilers often vary. for example, in the usual x86 C ABI: values are generally passed on the stack; structs are generally done by passing the return-value address to the called function; ... some compilers, in their wisdom, in certain cases, try to pass arguments in registers, or try to return the struct in registers, ... then compiler A and B break because A expected the return value to be via a memory copy and B expected it via registers, ... and, certain ABIs, such as the AMD64 ABI, are just plain complicated... (I personally like the design of the Win64 x64 ABI better, as it is much simpler...). then with C++, there is a somewhat different problem: nearly every compiler has its own ABI (or subtle variations on an existing ABI), and in the GCC 3/4 case, because they changed the C++ ABI between compiler versions. sadly though sometimes, the linker just blowing up in ones face is actually often the better case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 09:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isaq5h31eti@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4849 |
BGB wrote: > > yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isbc6j$4fi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4938 |
On 6/3/2011 6:40 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: > BGB wrote: >> >> yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations > > There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the > appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. > more like "there is no universal standardized C ABI...", and nothing is stated in the C standards to this effect, but, there ARE C-ABIs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions note also: http://agner.org./optimize/calling_conventions.pdf much like there is a C++ ABI (or more correctly, many C++ ABIs...). but, the "standardized" (in a largely de-facto sense) ABI for C on 32-bit x86 is commonly known as cdecl, but it has other names. in its common form: arguments are passed right to left on the stack; structs are passed by passing an argument to the return location on the stack; generally, on non-ELF targets, all names have a prepended '_'; ... now, the issue is that not all compilers exactly agree on all the details, and these subtle differences can at times break code linked together from different compilers... these issues can also pop up sometimes when mixing a DLL compiled in one compiler with a main program compiled in another (such as using MinGW-compiled DLLs with a MSVC-compiled app, ...). granted, most of the time all this works without too much issue though, and careful handling can largely avoid many of these issues... example: use caution when passing/returning structs or SIMD types (preferably, don't directly pass SIMD types, such as "__m128", only structs containing floats or similar); don't use long-double in API calls; ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isbkvf0me0@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4947 |
BGB wrote: > On 6/3/2011 6:40 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: >> BGB wrote: >>> >>> yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations >> >> There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the >> appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. => > more like "there is no universal standardized C ABI...", and nothing is > stated in the C standards to this effect, but, there ARE C-ABIs... Wrong. Those are platform ABIs. They have nothing to do with C, a language defined by ISO/IEC 9899, and not by implementations thereof or their dependencies. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions > > note also: > http://agner.org./optimize/calling_conventions.pdf Neither of which have anything to do with C. > much like there is a C++ ABI (or more correctly, many C++ ABIs...). Yes, insofar as there is no C++ ABI (much less "many C++ ABIs"). > but, the "standardized" (in a largely de-facto sense) ABI for C on > 32-bit x86 is commonly known as cdecl, but it has other names. Microsoft's cdecl calling convention for Windows has nothing to do with C, despite the name. > in its common form: Details are irrelevant. And feel free to devote similar efforts to your grandmother's egg-sucking edification; I've been dealing with the inner details of various ABIs for a quarter-century. > now, the issue is that not all compilers exactly agree on all the > details, and these subtle differences can at times break code linked > together from different compilers... No, the issue is that you apparently don't know what is and is not part of the C language, and that you have a regrettable tendency to wander off into irrelevant tangents. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isbpfq$3hh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4952 |
On 6/3/2011 2:06 PM, Michael Wojcik wrote: > BGB wrote: >> On 6/3/2011 6:40 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: >>> BGB wrote: >>>> >>>> yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations >>> >>> There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the >>> appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. > => >> more like "there is no universal standardized C ABI...", and nothing is >> stated in the C standards to this effect, but, there ARE C-ABIs... > > Wrong. Those are platform ABIs. They have nothing to do with C, a > language defined by ISO/IEC 9899, and not by implementations thereof > or their dependencies. > they are used for C, and defined in relation to C, and if one uses a different ABI, their code doesn't work on the given platform... so, same-difference really... it is thus mandatory supplementary material. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions >> >> note also: >> http://agner.org./optimize/calling_conventions.pdf > > Neither of which have anything to do with C. > >> much like there is a C++ ABI (or more correctly, many C++ ABIs...). > > Yes, insofar as there is no C++ ABI (much less "many C++ ABIs"). > >> but, the "standardized" (in a largely de-facto sense) ABI for C on >> 32-bit x86 is commonly known as cdecl, but it has other names. > > Microsoft's cdecl calling convention for Windows has nothing to do > with C, despite the name. > cdecl is also used on Linux on x86, and several other OS's (AFAIK FreeBSD and others), and so is not specific to MS. MS's own convention, "stdcall", is used far less often... >> in its common form: > > Details are irrelevant. And feel free to devote similar efforts to > your grandmother's egg-sucking edification; I've been dealing with the > inner details of various ABIs for a quarter-century. > I also write compilers... the details *are* the thing in question. a computer is itself details, as are programming languages, and there is nothing apart from its details. >> now, the issue is that not all compilers exactly agree on all the >> details, and these subtle differences can at times break code linked >> together from different compilers... > > No, the issue is that you apparently don't know what is and is not > part of the C language, and that you have a regrettable tendency to > wander off into irrelevant tangents. > the pure C standard, by itself, would be effectively useless for getting much done. much of its utility is due to all of this other stuff, which FWIW, is treated as if it were a part of the language, as it exists on the platforms in question. the matter then of how it exists on other platforms, well, that is how it exists there, and one can consider it in the context of those platforms, if it is within the confines of relevance to do so. portability as far as applications are concerned can usually be described as: "does it work on these N systems I care about?". beyond this: who knows, who cares, it is a matter for another day...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 11:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isnvst115kt@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4956 |
BGB wrote: > On 6/3/2011 2:06 PM, Michael Wojcik wrote: >> BGB wrote: >>> On 6/3/2011 6:40 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: >>>> BGB wrote: >>>>> >>>>> yeah... sadly, the C ABI is a little bit prone to variations >>>> >>>> There is no "C ABI". If you believe otherwise, please cite the >>>> appropriate language from ISO/IEC 9899. I'll accept any version. >> => >>> more like "there is no universal standardized C ABI...", and nothing is >>> stated in the C standards to this effect, but, there ARE C-ABIs... >> >> Wrong. Those are platform ABIs. They have nothing to do with C, a >> language defined by ISO/IEC 9899, and not by implementations thereof >> or their dependencies. >> > > they are used for C, and defined in relation to C, and if one uses a > different ABI, their code doesn't work on the given platform... My keyboard is used for C, and it contains characters used by the C language. That doesn't make it a C keyboard. > so, same-difference really... That sort of sloppy thinking is precisely why so much C code is lousy. > it is thus mandatory supplementary material. Wrong. There's nothing that prevents a C implementation from targeting an environment other than the host platform. The first C compiler for the AS/400 targeted the EPM (Extended Program Model) environment, which was not the main platform ABI. In fact, OS/400 at the time didn't have a single ABI; it had at least three, and the main one for application programs was the OPM (Original Program Model). C programs that wanted to invoke OPM routines had to use the QPXXCALL API. Later C implementations for OS/400 targeted other ABIs: System/C for OPM and ILE C for ILE. A C implementation doesn't need to target a platform ABI at all. The Standard permits a C implementation to target a virtual machine, which might be completely self-contained. An implementation can target the bare metal, and indeed such implementations are common for embedded computers. In fact, a C implementation isn't strictly required to produce an executable program. >> Microsoft's cdecl calling convention for Windows has nothing to do >> with C, despite the name. > > cdecl is also used on Linux on x86, and several other OS's (AFAIK > FreeBSD and others), and so is not specific to MS. It's still Microsoft's cdecl calling convention. They invented and named the thing. That other people have adopted it does not change that. > MS's own convention, "stdcall", is used far less often... Microsoft defines more calling conventions than __cdecl and __stdcall: __fastcall, __thiscall, __clrcall; and the now-obsolete __pascal, __fortran, and __syscall. >>> in its common form: >> >> Details are irrelevant. And feel free to devote similar efforts to >> your grandmother's egg-sucking edification; I've been dealing with the >> inner details of various ABIs for a quarter-century. > > I also write compilers... Hurrah for you. Who hasn't? > the details *are* the thing in question. No, they are not. The question is whether the ABI is part of C, and it is not. > a computer is itself details, as are programming languages, and there is > nothing apart from its details. Now I can't tell whether you're being tiresome or sophomoric. > the pure C standard, by itself, would be effectively useless for getting > much done. It's useful for defining the C programming language. > much of its utility is due to all of this other stuff, which FWIW, is > treated as if it were a part of the language, as it exists on the > platforms in question. Yes, by sloppy thinkers. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 11:54 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is6jev$bi8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4845 |
In message <is4gtl$c2e$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 05/31/2011 11:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. C certainly is. “Write once, run everywhere” is more true of C than it is of Java; a portable compiler like GCC means C is the most portable language in the world. > With Java, it doesn't matter which compiler I use to link the binary, they > all the do same thing. Even if I don't program my code in Java. ;-) > > Java has extreme ABI portability--any compiler, any OS, any arch. At the cost of putting the burden on the recipient of your code to figure out how to run a .jar file on their system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.28507c72d7d1e77f989775@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4870 |
In article <is6jev$bi8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > In message <is4gtl$c2e$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > > > On 05/31/2011 11:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > > > Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. > > C certainly is. ?Write once, run everywhere? is more true of C than it is of > Java; a portable compiler like GCC means C is the most portable language in > the world. Well, technically, you still have to have a gcc compiler available for your platform, but gcc *is* available on every popular platform *I* can think of. More importantly, you have to rebuild from source each time you deploy your app to a new platform. You don't, with Java. > > With Java, it doesn't matter which compiler I use to link the binary, they > > all the do same thing. Even if I don't program my code in Java. ;-) > > > > Java has extreme ABI portability--any compiler, any OS, any arch. > > At the cost of putting the burden on the recipient of your code to figure > out how to run a .jar file on their system. Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy enough to include one with your app. Or you can create a native executable stub. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 17:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.28507c9fce7fc1d1989776@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4871 |
In article <MPG.28507c72d7d1e77f989775@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol says... > > In article <is6jev$bi8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > > > In message <is4gtl$c2e$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > > > > > On 05/31/2011 11:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > > > > > Funny. I thought C/C++ was supposed to be portable. > > > > C certainly is. ?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. > > Well, technically, you still have to have a gcc compiler available for > your platform, but gcc *is* available on every popular platform *I* can > think of. More importantly, you have to rebuild from source each time > you deploy your app to a new platform. You don't, with Java. > > > > With Java, it doesn't matter which compiler I use to link the binary, they > > > all the do same thing. Even if I don't program my code in Java. ;-) > > > > > > Java has extreme ABI portability--any compiler, any OS, any arch. > > > > At the cost of putting the burden on the recipient of your code to figure > > out how to run a .jar file on their system. > > Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy enough > to include one with your app. Or you can create a native executable > stub. .. and Windows and OS X allow you to double-click JAR files to execute them. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 15:08 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is9j7n$2sg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4871 |
In message <MPG.28507c72d7d1e77f989775@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <is6jev$bi8$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >> >> At the cost of putting the burden on the recipient of your code to figure >> out how to run a .jar file on their system. > > Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy enough > to include one with your app. Or you can create a native executable > stub. Sounds like you’re reinventing the work done by GNU Autoconf, only now it’s happening on every execution, instead of once at build time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 20:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2851f9ee58352c5a98977b@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4915 |
In article <is9j7n$2sg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > > Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy enough > > to include one with your app. Or you can create a native executable > > stub. > > Sounds like you?re reinventing the work done by GNU Autoconf, only now it?s > happening on every execution, instead of once at build time. You're right, but if I create an app for someone and give them a file they can execute at the command line, or double-click in the GUI, who the hell cares? You can be as puritannical and as nit-picky as you want, but in the end, as long as the end-user can run the app, it doesn't matter. -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 17:34 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is9rp0$7o0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4918 |
In message <MPG.2851f9ee58352c5a98977b@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <is9j7n$2sg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >> >> In message <MPG.28507c72d7d1e77f989775@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol >> wrote: >>> >>> Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy >>> enough to include one with your app. Or you can create a native >>> executable stub. >> >> Sounds like you?re reinventing the work done by GNU Autoconf, only now >> it?s happening on every execution, instead of once at build time. > > You're right, but if I create an app for someone and give them a file > they can execute at the command line, or double-click in the GUI, who > the hell cares? Don’t they also have to download and install Java first?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 23:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.28521d0255e2c51398977c@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4924 |
In article <is9rp0$7o0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > Don?t they also have to download and install Java first? Most Linux distros' installers install a JVM by default, OS X also installs a JVM by default, and at least one major PC manufacturer includes Java on their desktop computers (that'd be the 2nd largest - Dell - I am not sure about the others). -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 18:43 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is9vpq$9u7$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4925 |
In message <MPG.28521d0255e2c51398977c@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <is9rp0$7o0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... > >In message <is9rp0$7o0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message <MPG.2851f9ee58352c5a98977b@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol >> wrote: >> >>> In article <is9j7n$2sg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro says... >>>> >>>> In message <MPG.28507c72d7d1e77f989775@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Batch files and shell scripts work just fine, and it's easy >>>>> enough to include one with your app. Or you can create a native >>>>> executable stub. >>>> >>>> Sounds like you?re reinventing the work done by GNU Autoconf, only now >>>> it?s happening on every execution, instead of once at build time. >>> >>> You're right, but if I create an app for someone and give them a file >>> they can execute at the command line, or double-click in the GUI, who >>> the hell cares? >> >> Don’t they also have to download and install Java first? >> >> Most Linux distros' installers install a JVM by default, OS X also > installs a JVM by default, and at least one major PC manufacturer > includes Java on their desktop computers (that'd be the 2nd largest - > Dell - I am not sure about the others). Notable omission from that list...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web