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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 10:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isnvt2615kt@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4984 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <isck8i$92j$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >> I'm sure that outside of GNU or FSF-blessed programs, there are a lot of >> C/C++ programs that wouldn't compile on Unix-ish-but-not-Linux >> platforms, like OpenBSD or Solaris. > > How about this one <http://www.blender.org/>, with a million lines of C > code, last I counted. Or this one <http://dev.mysql.com/>. Or this one > <http://www.libreoffice.org/>. Or this one <http://httpd.apache.org/>. So your claim is that the total number of C and C++ programs, minus four, is less than "a lot"? Though to be honest, I don't really see what the point is. I think Joshua is overestimating the number of C and C++ programs that are specific to Linux and won't build on OpenBSD or Solaris. There are definitely some, but IME they're usually the ones that deliberately use features peculiar to Linux, for whatever reason. (A better argument might have been the number of C and C++ programs that run on x86 Linux but either don't build or fail on one of the pickier UNIXes, such as HP-UX for Itanium. But even then it's a quibble.) What's more important is the generally poor quality of C code. (I think much C++ is also poorly written, but arguing that is more complicated, because it's a far larger language with more latitude for programmer choice.) So let's look at your examples. Blender: Has about 260 open bugs, including memory allocation issues and assertion failures. Much of the source is C++, which I'm not going to look at now; but the C source is problematic. For example, there are a few uses of strncpy. strncpy has broken semantics; it is never the right choice. Blender also includes its own implementation of strncpy (BLI_strncpy), for no readily apparent reason, and most of the code uses that; but it's sub-optimal. It also uses strcpy extensively, and I'm not convinced all of those are safe, for example in the makesrna implementation. That's just from a minute of glancing at the source. MySQL: 145 bugs filed in the past 30 days, some of which are clearly coding errors (eg #61303, #61208). I don't want to take the time right now to prowl through the sources, but the project does not have a great track record; see CVE-2009-2446, CVE-2006-1516 through CVE-2006-1518, CVE-2010-3676 through CVE-2010-3683, and so on. LibreOffice: A fork of the OOo code, which does not have a great track record. Consider CVE-2010-3450 through -3454, etc. And while those CVEs don't list LibreOffice among vulnerable products, the SuSE LibreOffice update claims it's vulnerable (see [1]). I suspect the relative lack of official vulnerability reports for LibreOffice is because they're generally reported against OOo instead. And since LO has significant additional features on top of the OOo base, it has a lot more room for additional mistakes. Apache: An outlier project, with excellent funding and a great many eyes on the code. That hasn't kept it free of errors. Take a look at the brand-new CVE-2011-1921, for example. Or CVE-2011-1928, a classic error in C code, caused by a fix to the earlier CVE-2011-0419. '0419 and '1928 are only DoS vulnerabilities; but that's bad enough. And these are extremely popular projects, so they get a lot of attention. Less-used and less-examined code tends to be much worse. [1] http://secunia.com/advisories/43837/ -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 20:38 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <3KTHp.3576$PA5.1424@newsfe01.iad> |
| In reply to | #5094 |
On 11-06-08 11:10 AM, Michael Wojcik wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message <isck8i$92j$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> I'm sure that outside of GNU or FSF-blessed programs, there are a lot of >>> C/C++ programs that wouldn't compile on Unix-ish-but-not-Linux >>> platforms, like OpenBSD or Solaris. >> >> How about this one <http://www.blender.org/>, with a million lines of C >> code, last I counted. Or this one <http://dev.mysql.com/>. Or this one >> <http://www.libreoffice.org/>. Or this one <http://httpd.apache.org/>. > > So your claim is that the total number of C and C++ programs, minus > four, is less than "a lot"? > > Though to be honest, I don't really see what the point is. I think > Joshua is overestimating the number of C and C++ programs that are > specific to Linux and won't build on OpenBSD or Solaris. There are > definitely some, but IME they're usually the ones that deliberately > use features peculiar to Linux, for whatever reason. > > (A better argument might have been the number of C and C++ programs > that run on x86 Linux but either don't build or fail on one of the > pickier UNIXes, such as HP-UX for Itanium. But even then it's a quibble.) > > > What's more important is the generally poor quality of C code. (I > think much C++ is also poorly written, but arguing that is more > complicated, because it's a far larger language with more latitude for > programmer choice.) > > So let's look at your examples. > > Blender: Has about 260 open bugs, including memory allocation issues > and assertion failures. Much of the source is C++, which I'm not going > to look at now; but the C source is problematic. For example, there > are a few uses of strncpy. strncpy has broken semantics; it is never > the right choice. Blender also includes its own implementation of > strncpy (BLI_strncpy), for no readily apparent reason, and most of the > code uses that; but it's sub-optimal. It also uses strcpy extensively, > and I'm not convinced all of those are safe, for example in the > makesrna implementation. That's just from a minute of glancing at the > source. > > MySQL: 145 bugs filed in the past 30 days, some of which are clearly > coding errors (eg #61303, #61208). I don't want to take the time right > now to prowl through the sources, but the project does not have a > great track record; see CVE-2009-2446, CVE-2006-1516 through > CVE-2006-1518, CVE-2010-3676 through CVE-2010-3683, and so on. > > LibreOffice: A fork of the OOo code, which does not have a great track > record. Consider CVE-2010-3450 through -3454, etc. And while those > CVEs don't list LibreOffice among vulnerable products, the SuSE > LibreOffice update claims it's vulnerable (see [1]). I suspect the > relative lack of official vulnerability reports for LibreOffice is > because they're generally reported against OOo instead. And since LO > has significant additional features on top of the OOo base, it has a > lot more room for additional mistakes. > > Apache: An outlier project, with excellent funding and a great many > eyes on the code. That hasn't kept it free of errors. Take a look at > the brand-new CVE-2011-1921, for example. Or CVE-2011-1928, a classic > error in C code, caused by a fix to the earlier CVE-2011-0419. '0419 > and '1928 are only DoS vulnerabilities; but that's bad enough. > > > And these are extremely popular projects, so they get a lot of > attention. Less-used and less-examined code tends to be much worse. > > > [1] http://secunia.com/advisories/43837/ > I'll throw a few more into the mix. These are two pieces of C/C++ software that I had reason to use at work a few months. One well-known, one not so much so. Case A: I needed to write a web services client in C. So I went with Axis 2 C. My initial build attempt was on Mac OS X 10.6, which is a certified UNIX 03. It didn't. Come to find out that some fellows have worked out the handful of (relatively simple) patches needed to fix the #ifdef's for Mac OS X. Seeing as how Axis 2 C purports to be implemented with portability this wasn't a good start. I got the sucker built on Mac OS X. After generating the stubs for a working WSDL (you need to use a Java-based tool to do this), I discovered real soon that an important struct that is used frequently in generated stub code (by used I mean often used by value; e.g. de-referenced pointers) had its full declaration buried in a .c implementation file for the _library_; not in the corresponding header. It has been quite a while since I wrote any C prior to this, but I figured this wasn't quite right. Especially since there was no way the client code would compile with just the headers for the Axis 2 C library. So maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but there's no denying the fact that in two different ways what should have compiled out of the box did not. The error was a standard "storage size not known" kind of thing. It was easy enough to fix (with some refactoring of the Axis 2 C library, and re-building it), which makes the situation worse somehow. I eventually dispensed with Axis 2 C altogether - this experience didn't make me happy, and a different design decision let me move to higher-level .NET APIs. NOt to mention, the Axis 2 C API docs sucked, so I ended up generating some useful ones using Doxygen - another black mark - *and* the API itself could have been better. I might note that I ran across one comment by an Axis 2 C developer where he said that the model to be followed was "typedef done inside the header and the struct declaration is in source...in a case you still want to move the struct to the header (it is not a much recommended approach in c programming) ... [Ed. How-To description of procedure follows]" Maybe I missed something in my years away from C, but those recommendations were new to me. Case B: I was working with the source code for a Windows printer driver that I wished to modify. I tried to build it with VC++, several versions, and just could not easily do it - the code was studded with UNIX API calls. As soon as I hacked one problem it led to others. To this day I can't understand why a group of developers - moreover, a group of developers who were "good" enough to write a working and fairly sophisticated Windows printer driver - insisted on thoroughly mixing Windows code with UNIXish code. It's jarring to see the use of UNIX I/O in the same source along with MS-inspired Hungarian notation and MFC macros. It's hard to read...plus I hate a lot of those macros. I eventually only succeeded in building this driver from source by using a very specific version of the Dev-C++ IDE, namely the one with an exact version of mingw included. Even a later version of standalone mingw on the command line, using the *supplied Makefile*, would not build this driver. It had to be the mingw included with Dev-C++...using that makefile. Again, maybe it's just me, but this smacks of laziness and user unfriendliness. I respect the efforts put in by the mingw and cygwin people, but the point of those is to make it easier to use existing UNIX stuff on Windows. If you have the opportunity to write a C/C++ Windows printer driver *from scratch* you write it the Microsoft way, IMHO. This team did one other thing which I really, really disliked. Their printer driver - it created image files actually - uses libpng, libjpeg, libtiff and zlib. Each and every one of these builds OK on Windows, producing a DLL and LIB along with headers that can be used by other projects in the usual way...I know, because I've built them on Windows enough times over the years. What these guys did was pull in all of the source for these libraries, and bundled them in with their own code. So the printer driver build was intimately intermingled with compiling and linking the code for those 4 libraries. I'm sorry, but that's just not the way it's supposed to work. In this case too the experience leaves me with the impression that it's working but substandard C/C++ code. Cutting corners to suit your own development preferences means you might be cutting corners somewhere else. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isp42u$bl1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5142 |
On 6/8/2011 4:38 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > What these guys did was pull in all of the > source for these libraries, and bundled them in with their own code. So > the printer driver build was intimately intermingled with compiling and > linking the code for those 4 libraries. > > I'm sorry, but that's just not the way it's supposed to work. I don't know Windows development as well as I do Linux, but in Linux at least, it is "very hard" to link userspace libraries into kernel modules, so I suspect that Windows drivers have the same issue: you need to have those libraries statically linked in. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 23:41 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <EpWHp.40499$Vp.21286@newsfe14.iad> |
| In reply to | #5143 |
On 11-06-08 09:28 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 6/8/2011 4:38 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> What these guys did was pull in all of the >> source for these libraries, and bundled them in with their own code. So >> the printer driver build was intimately intermingled with compiling and >> linking the code for those 4 libraries. >> >> I'm sorry, but that's just not the way it's supposed to work. > > I don't know Windows development as well as I do Linux, but in Linux at > least, it is "very hard" to link userspace libraries into kernel > modules, so I suspect that Windows drivers have the same issue: you need > to have those libraries statically linked in. > I appreciate the point you make. In this case the thing is based on the MS universal printer driver (Unidrv), and the UI and rendering plugins for that, plus the port monitor that the project also supplies, are all user-mode DLLs. Furthermore, the function of _this_ port monitor is ultimately to write image files, not to communicate with kernel-mode port drivers even. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-11 13:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <it0b3c01q2f@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #5142 |
Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > I might note that I ran across one comment by an Axis 2 C developer > where he said that the model to be followed was > > "typedef done inside the header and the struct declaration is in > source...in a case you still want to move the struct to the header (it > is not a much recommended approach in c programming) ... [Ed. How-To > description of procedure follows]" > > Maybe I missed something in my years away from C, but those > recommendations were new to me. His description's not quite right, but incomplete structure declarations are an important aspect of encapsulation in C. Ignore any mention of "typedef" for a moment. typedef is a misnomer, since it doesn't define a type, just an alias for an existing type. (It's also of questionable utility. Some people think it's useful for defining complex function-pointer types; I say if you don't understand C's function-pointer syntax, don't write C code.) In C, new types are defined using the struct keyword (and sometimes union, but that's really just a specialized struct). The struct keyword can do either or both of two things: - define a structure type - introduce a type name into the struct-tag namespace The former is necessary if you want to inspect the contents of an object of the type, evaluate its size or the size of the type, etc. But it is not necessary to define certain derivative types, such as the const-qualified equivalent type, or the associated pointer type. The latter is what lets you encapsulate. In a header, you provide an incomplete structure declaration and an API that uses the pointer type derived from it: struct foo; struct foo *CreateFoo(); DoThingToFoo(struct foo *, ...); PureFunctionOnFoo(const struct foo *, ...); DeleteFoo(struct foo *); Consumers of your API have no access to the implementation of struct foo, so they're insulated from any changes to it. And since struct foo * is a perfectly good object pointer, they can do whatever they'd do with any other pointer, except dereference it. (You can of course wrap "struct foo" in a typedef, if the people who use your API are too lazy to type the word "struct".) Note the initial "struct foo;" is necessary. Otherwise the use of an unknown "struct foo" in the declarations of the API would only introduce the type name in "prototype scope", which ends at the end of each declaration. Prototype scope is basically useless. This is a useful and fairly widely used technique - though not nearly as widely as it should be. Of course, the API has to provide for whatever its consumers need, since the consumers don't have direct access to the contents of the structure, can't allocate or copy one, etc. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-12 16:59 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <GU8Jp.50669$5f.28538@newsfe19.iad> |
| In reply to | #5211 |
On 11-06-11 02:38 PM, Michael Wojcik wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> >> I might note that I ran across one comment by an Axis 2 C developer >> where he said that the model to be followed was >> >> "typedef done inside the header and the struct declaration is in >> source...in a case you still want to move the struct to the header (it >> is not a much recommended approach in c programming) ... [Ed. How-To >> description of procedure follows]" >> >> Maybe I missed something in my years away from C, but those >> recommendations were new to me. > > His description's not quite right, but incomplete structure > declarations are an important aspect of encapsulation in C. > > Ignore any mention of "typedef" for a moment. typedef is a misnomer, > since it doesn't define a type, just an alias for an existing type. > (It's also of questionable utility. Some people think it's useful for > defining complex function-pointer types; I say if you don't understand > C's function-pointer syntax, don't write C code.) Yeah, the typedef mention I ignored. I would use it myself with structs for the reason that everyone does, so that you don't have to retype 'struct' all the time. What the Axis 2 C developer meant by that bit is basically the incomplete structure declaration that you mention below. Which makes sense in general. > In C, new types are defined using the struct keyword (and sometimes > union, but that's really just a specialized struct). The struct > keyword can do either or both of two things: > > - define a structure type > - introduce a type name into the struct-tag namespace > > The former is necessary if you want to inspect the contents of an > object of the type, evaluate its size or the size of the type, etc. > But it is not necessary to define certain derivative types, such as > the const-qualified equivalent type, or the associated pointer type. > > The latter is what lets you encapsulate. In a header, you provide an > incomplete structure declaration and an API that uses the pointer type > derived from it: > > struct foo; > struct foo *CreateFoo(); > DoThingToFoo(struct foo *, ...); > PureFunctionOnFoo(const struct foo *, ...); > DeleteFoo(struct foo *); > > Consumers of your API have no access to the implementation of struct > foo, so they're insulated from any changes to it. And since struct foo > * is a perfectly good object pointer, they can do whatever they'd do > with any other pointer, except dereference it. > > (You can of course wrap "struct foo" in a typedef, if the people who > use your API are too lazy to type the word "struct".) Which is what the Axis 2 C headers do. Except that they are quite inconsistent in their use of the typedef; makes you wonder why they threw it in. > Note the initial "struct foo;" is necessary. Otherwise the use of an > unknown "struct foo" in the declarations of the API would only > introduce the type name in "prototype scope", which ends at the end of > each declaration. Prototype scope is basically useless. > > This is a useful and fairly widely used technique - though not nearly > as widely as it should be. Of course, the API has to provide for > whatever its consumers need, since the consumers don't have direct > access to the contents of the structure, can't allocate or copy one, etc. > I'm cool with all this. Good explanation. I learnt C quite a long time ago and don't remember that incomplete types were being strongly pushed back then. Nor have I used C much in over 20 years. I must admit, I'm much more aware of comparable techniques in C++, and simply never made the backwards leap. Bit too much of not seeing the forest for the trees. I suspect that when I did write a fair bit of C, that I wrote the client code in such a way that I usually needed the full declaration anyway - that is, no particular APIs to wrap the anticipated handling of the struct. You make a good point about writing the APIs in such a way that client code can do what it needs to do with only the pointer. This is where Axis 2 C made this mistake, as I described. Their WSDL stub generator (and probably their skeleton generator also) produces code that deferences at least one very important struct pointer. The relevant header (and accompanying implementation) has no provision for supplying a suitable function that would obviate the need to dereference. As I see it you'd have 2 options here - (1) expose the complete struct in the header, and not change the client, or (2) add a function to carry out the operation that the client code requires, which means modifying both the client (the code generator actually if you're going to do this a lot) and the library. Either way you have to modify the library code, which is not something you should require of your library users. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-15 14:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <itbmha017f9@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #5275 |
Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > I suspect that when I did write a fair bit of C, that I wrote the client > code in such a way that I usually needed the full declaration anyway - > that is, no particular APIs to wrap the anticipated handling of the > struct. You make a good point about writing the APIs in such a way that > client code can do what it needs to do with only the pointer. Yeah. C doesn't provide much in the way of abstraction and encapsulation (the way that typical OO languages do), so a lot of C programmers never notice that there are some ways to achieve a fair bit of it. > This is where Axis 2 C made this mistake, as I described. Their WSDL > stub generator (and probably their skeleton generator also) produces > code that deferences at least one very important struct pointer. The > relevant header (and accompanying implementation) has no provision for > supplying a suitable function that would obviate the need to dereference. Yup, that would be a bug. > As I see it you'd have 2 options here - (1) expose the complete struct > in the header, and not change the client, or (2) add a function to carry > out the operation that the client code requires, which means modifying > both the client (the code generator actually if you're going to do this > a lot) and the library. Either way you have to modify the library code, > which is not something you should require of your library users. Agreed. This might be the result of insufficient standards and editing among the development team for Axis 2 C - it sounds like some contributors wanted encapsulation, and others weren't thinking of it. One of the advantages of open source is that you can fix things like this yourself. One of the disadvantages is that you may have to... -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ispmua$kqj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5094 |
On 6/8/2011 8:41 PM, Stefan Ram wrote: > Michael Wojcik<mwojcik@newsguy.com> writes: >> LibreOffice: A fork of the OOo code, which does not have a great track >> record. Consider CVE-2010-3450 through -3454, etc. And while those >> CVEs don't list LibreOffice among vulnerable products, the SuSE >> LibreOffice update claims it's vulnerable (see [1]). I suspect the >> relative lack of official vulnerability reports for LibreOffice is >> because they're generally reported against OOo instead. And since LO >> has significant additional features on top of the OOo base, it has a >> lot more room for additional mistakes. > > So, where is my Java Office Suite? > > 1997 Lotus wrote an Office Suite in Java, but it has been withdrawn. > OpenOffice is written partly in Java... I am not sure what or how much, as personally I have not looked at its code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-11 13:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Android---Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <it0b3k11q2f@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #5094 |
Stefan Ram wrote: > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> writes: >> LibreOffice: A fork of the OOo code, which does not have a great track >> record. Consider CVE-2010-3450 through -3454, etc. And while those >> CVEs don't list LibreOffice among vulnerable products, the SuSE >> LibreOffice update claims it's vulnerable (see [1]). I suspect the >> relative lack of official vulnerability reports for LibreOffice is >> because they're generally reported against OOo instead. And since LO >> has significant additional features on top of the OOo base, it has a >> lot more room for additional mistakes. > > So, where is my Java Office Suite? Have you checked under the sofa cushions? > 1997 Lotus wrote an Office Suite in Java, but it has been withdrawn. Fascinating, but I am not sure what point you are trying to make. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 22:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MUgGp.106$iA.23@newsfe22.iad> |
| In reply to | #4770 |
On 30/05/2011 6:55 PM, BGB wrote:
> 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.
Writing portable code usually means giving up on some specific features
of individual OS's ("homogenize" seems to me an uncecessarily pejorative
word for it). I'v written #ifdef code like you've suggested and got
tired of it; even with just keeping them inside header files, eventually
the whole thing became unwieldy. I'm sure that *some* programs need to
be OS-specific, but fewer than some programmers think (not a dig at you
personally; just remembering some other conversations I've heard on
similar subjects).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 22:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <iscf28$i2i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4968 |
On 6/3/2011 7:38 PM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 30/05/2011 6:55 PM, BGB wrote:
>> well, IMO, trying to homogenize the environment is itself a problem...
>>
>> this is actually part of what I think is a weak-point of the JVM
>> strategy:
>> they try to gloss over the real OS/... by basically creating a new layer
>> of abstractions, and wrapping everything in the new API.
>
> Writing portable code usually means giving up on some specific features
> of individual OS's ("homogenize" seems to me an uncecessarily pejorative
> word for it). I'v written #ifdef code like you've suggested and got
> tired of it; even with just keeping them inside header files, eventually
> the whole thing became unwieldy. I'm sure that *some* programs need to
> be OS-specific, but fewer than some programmers think (not a dig at you
> personally; just remembering some other conversations I've heard on
> similar subjects).
most of my stuff has been compilers, VMs, and 3D engines...
in each case, most of the platform specific code tends to be centralized
in various places (with lots of "#ifdef's"), with most things being
re-exposed via "generic" APIs.
however, without being able to use advanced/OS-specific functionality
when needed, what is actually possible is greatly limited...
sometimes in the innards of a program, it is necessary to do some very
nasty and non-portable things in order to make the program work, and if
one can't do these things, then the answer is simple: the program wont
work...
but, this doesn't necessarily mean it can't work on multiple targets,
just the "deep magic" has to be addressed for whatever targets are in
question (as a failure to address it may result in a non-functional
program).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:54 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is1hp2$dmh$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4766 |
In message <is0vhm$ha$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to > solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the > application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common > virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different > OS's below it. Those who knew the history of previous attempts to do this sort of thing could already predict why it wasn’t going to succeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 14:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrniu9uj9.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4783 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message <is0vhm$ha$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to >> solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the >> application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common >> virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different >> OS's below it. > Those who knew the history of previous attempts to do this sort of thing > could already predict why it wasn’t going to succeed. I wouldn't exactly call "one size fits *almost* all" a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 08:02 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3hgf$j4p$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4795 |
In message <slrniu9uj9.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>, Andreas Leitgeb wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >> In message <is0vhm$ha$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >>> The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to >>> solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the >>> application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common >>> virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different >>> OS's below it. >> >> Those who knew the history of previous attempts to do this sort of thing >> could already predict why it wasn’t going to succeed. > > I wouldn't exactly call "one size fits *almost* all" a failure. It was never able to spread as widely as Sun originally hoped. And now we see attempts to fix up its flaws (like the substitution of Dalvik for the JVM in Android) raising the ire of Oracle, to the point where it wants to sabotage them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is3mjs$p4s$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4814 |
On 5/31/2011 1:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<slrniu9uj9.phi.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>, Andreas Leitgeb > wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro<ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >> >>> In message<is0vhm$ha$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >>>> The funny thing, is that Java when it came out, was supposed to >>>> solve all these differences by putting a virtual OS between the >>>> application and the OS, this way one writes to this one common >>>> virtual OS (the VM) and not have to worry about the different >>>> OS's below it. >>> >>> Those who knew the history of previous attempts to do this sort of thing >>> could already predict why it wasn’t going to succeed. >> >> I wouldn't exactly call "one size fits *almost* all" a failure. > > It was never able to spread as widely as Sun originally hoped. And now we > see attempts to fix up its flaws (like the substitution of Dalvik for the > JVM in Android) raising the ire of Oracle, to the point where it wants to > sabotage them. yeah... Sun wanted world domination... they didn't get this, but they still managed to do pretty good (putting Java on par with C and C++ in terms of popularity). of course, C# is currently up there as well, so it is mostly a battle between C, C++, Java, and C# for the title of "most widely used language...".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 11:33 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is3tsk$q6q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4823 |
In message <is3mjs$p4s$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > yeah... Sun wanted world domination... > > they didn't get this, but they still managed to do pretty good (putting > Java on par with C and C++ in terms of popularity). Looks like Java is in long-term decline, and will be surpassed by C soon <http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html>. Even C++ and Perl are falling off, and Visual Basic might be too. What’s showing long-term growth? C# and Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is4904$pv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4832 |
On 5/31/2011 4:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<is3mjs$p4s$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> yeah... Sun wanted world domination... >> >> they didn't get this, but they still managed to do pretty good (putting >> Java on par with C and C++ in terms of popularity). > > Looks like Java is in long-term decline, and will be surpassed by C soon > <http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html>. Even C++ > and Perl are falling off, and Visual Basic might be too. > > What’s showing long-term growth? C# and Python. > Hello Lawrence; I tried to find if one can run Python inside a browser, like one can do with Java, but could not find a way. Looked at all the Phyton sites and wiki, etc... Do you know of a way, or if this might be something in the works for the future of Python? Witout the ability to run Python directly inside the browser (in a VM like env.), then I do not see how Python can be considered a viable solution for the new rich internet applications computing world we are supposed to be moving to, where Javascript and HTML5 are the prefered tools of development since they are browser friendly/native things. At least, Java can run inside the browser since it has a VM, but Python can't, at least not today? or Am I wrong on this? --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 15:03 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <is4a5c$1bh$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4836 |
In message <is4904$pv$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > Witout the ability to run Python directly inside the browser > (in a VM like env.), then I do not see how Python can be > considered a viable solution for the new rich internet > applications computing world we are supposed to be moving to, > where Javascript and HTML5 are the prefered > tools of development since they are browser friendly/native > things. JavaScript is the language of choice for that. > At least, Java can run inside the browser since it has a > VM ... Which you have to download and install separately, and most people can’t be bothered with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <is4ate$49d$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4837 |
On 5/31/2011 8:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> At least, Java can run inside the browser since it has a >> VM ... > > Which you have to download and install separately, and most people can’t be > bothered with that. Do you have an insight why Java JRE is not shipped with the browser itself? Why can't say oracle, when they have a new Java VM ready, send it to all those interested in integrating it in their browsers build system (firefox, apple, Microsoft, google chrome, etc..) and then those will work with Oracle to integrate the JRE into the browser build if they wish. I never understood why does the browser ships without java, then one has to go download the JRE separately. Why not have that part of the browser installation itself? Why can't say Firefox comes Java ready? The browser size will be a little larger, but so what? internet speed is fast these days, who cares if it is 18 MB larger now. Why do you think this is not done? It due to some legal issues? or technical ones? thanks --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 01:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <is4h91$fbb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4839 |
On 05/31/2011 11:15 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > Do you have an insight why Java JRE is not shipped with > the browser itself? License issues is the biggest one. There is also the fact that it defeats the purpose of the plugin architecture: it's not like Firefox bundles Flash, the other You Need This plugin. Actually, as an aside, Firefox used to have a deep integration via OJI, and until Firefox 3 or so, it was theoretically possible to write your extension in Java (JavaXPCOM has since been broken, I think). Nowadays, Mozilla-Java integration is mostly limited to the standard NPAPI (i.e., plugin) architecture capabilities. > The browser size will be a little larger, but so what? internet > speed is fast these days, who cares if it is 18 MB larger now. Judging from wget, the size of Firefox right now is 12 MB. While download size is not a huge priority, a 150% regression is definitely not going to be accepted. And keep in mind that not everyone has access to high-speed internet; e.g., Africa. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web