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 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 23:05 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <isicaf$5to$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #5005 |
In message <isi3g3$161$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 6/5/2011 11:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. >> Engineering is just a collection of technologies; > > I think engineering is more than just technology. > > You have to understand things, like stress and strain, > dynamics and control, how to solve differential and > integral equations, and many other hard subjects. It takes > many long years to understand some of these things. What did you think technology was about? > Not everything in the world is a pointy and clicky > technology thing ... Is “pointy and clicky” synonymous with “technology” to you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isiktc$fq4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5012 |
On 6/6/2011 4:05 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<isi3g3$161$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > >> On 6/5/2011 11:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. >>> Engineering is just a collection of technologies; >> >> I think engineering is more than just technology. >> >> You have to understand things, like stress and strain, >> dynamics and control, how to solve differential and >> integral equations, and many other hard subjects. It takes >> many long years to understand some of these things. > > What did you think technology was about? > Good question. I guess I must keep forgetting that solving differential equations is a techology. I thought it was like math and physics and such thing. But may be these are technology also. >> Not everything in the world is a pointy and clicky >> technology thing ... > > Is “pointy and clicky” synonymous with “technology” to you? Another good point. Ok, you are correct. Engineering must be a technology. --Nasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 11:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isir67$82l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5003 |
On 06/06/2011 02:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. > Engineering is just a collection of technologies; finance is technology > (insofar as it is mathematically-based); health is nothing without > technology these days; same with education, aeronautics, etc, etc. Health is just technology? Then go analyze this brain scan image for me and tell me if the patient has a brain tumor or not. Or try chemical engineering. I've taken organic chemistry courses, so I could probably (given a lot of time) tell you how to synthesize a simple compound. How to actually make it in kilogram quantities I would have no idea--that's how different chemical engineering is from the purer theoretical chemistry. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 10:21 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <isjjtb$sm1$3@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #5015 |
In message <isir67$82l$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 06/06/2011 02:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. >> Engineering is just a collection of technologies; finance is technology >> (insofar as it is mathematically-based); health is nothing without >> technology these days; same with education, aeronautics, etc, etc. > > Health is just technology? Then go analyze this brain scan image for me > and tell me if the patient has a brain tumor or not. How did you get that brain scan? > Or try chemical engineering. I've taken organic chemistry courses, so I > could probably (given a lot of time) tell you how to synthesize a simple > compound. How to actually make it in kilogram quantities I would have no > idea--that's how different chemical engineering is from the purer > theoretical chemistry. Guess what you would need to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 10:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iso6ar12sr7@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #5039 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <isir67$82l$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: > >> On 06/06/2011 02:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. >>> Engineering is just a collection of technologies; finance is technology >>> (insofar as it is mathematically-based); health is nothing without >>> technology these days; same with education, aeronautics, etc, etc. >> Health is just technology? Then go analyze this brain scan image for me >> and tell me if the patient has a brain tumor or not. > > How did you get that brain scan? I believe Joshua was contesting the former word in your phrase "just technology", and not the latter. Health - even if by that we mean just "systematized health care" - is not "just" technology. We do not have mechanical doctors. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 06:53 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <9ymHp.1244$g12.1088@newsfe20.iad> |
| In reply to | #5003 |
On 11-06-06 03:52 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <xfDGp.508$_I7.290@newsfe08.iad>, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > >> On 11-06-05 12:45 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message <isckmn$as7$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote: >>> >>>> In the end, it probably doesn't matter. If you're a new entrant to the >>>> jobs market, you should probably have the flexibility to learn any >>>> language desired of you; if you've been in the workforce for decades, >>>> then your domain knowledge is what will sell you and not the languages >>>> you know. >>> >>> I’ve been in the workforce for decades, and I keep getting challenged to >>> deal with new domains, from (most recently) mobile apps and telephony, >>> and going further back, databases and Web development (both back-end and >>> front- end), multimedia, client-server networking etc. >>> >>> I don’t think specialism in one domain is going to keep you employed. >> >> What you mention are technologies. They are not domains. As I mentioned >> in my previous post, domains are application domains, like engineering >> or finance or health or education or aeronautics or games or image >> recognition. > > No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. > Engineering is just a collection of technologies; finance is technology > (insofar as it is mathematically-based); health is nothing without > technology these days; same with education, aeronautics, etc, etc. No. You're missing the point. Unless you've got an artificially broad definition of technology, the domains I refer to are real-world processes, problems, solutions, procedures, techniques etc. Domains are real-world environments that are a mishmash of science, engineering, technology, human knowledge, human emotion, community conventions and mores and standards, conventional wisdom, habits and entrenched interests. A business or application domain (_you_ might want to read up on domain driven design to understand what a domain is) is what you are trying to model in your software. While some of the existing processes that you are modeling may use technology, those processes themselves are *not* technologies. I can also assure you of one incontrovertible fact: it's not possible for a programmer to think the way you do unless they have never moved away from tools and toy apps. AHS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 10:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iso6at22sr7@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #5003 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > No, what you mention are themselves just technologies, not domains. This is a painfully foolish line of argument. (I am saddened that you appear to have convinced even one person with it. What are they teaching in school these days?) > Engineering is just a collection of technologies; Humans are a collection of molecules; that does not make them molecules. > finance is technology > (insofar as it is mathematically-based); Humans are carbon-based; that does not make them carbon. > health is nothing without > technology these days; Humans are nothing without oxygen; that does not make them oxygen. > same with education, aeronautics, etc, etc. Cetera indeed. Even a less-foolish formulation of this line of thought - a pure instrumentalist world view - has been thoroughly critiqued by any number of sophisticated thinkers, from Jurgen Habermas (not one of my favorites, but not stupid either) to Andrew Feenberg to Donna Haraway and so on. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <isnvt1515kt@news2.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4958 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <isaq5k51eti@news2.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik wrote: > >> [TIOBE’s] long-term data shows Java and C securely holding the top two >> spots for the past decade. > > With Java on a downward trend. Which could just be a market correction. While we might speculate that Java will eventually drop further down in the rankings, we don't have a good model for long-term interest in programming languages. The oldest languages still in relatively widespread use - Fortran, COBOL, LISP, and assembly (considered as a general category) - might be typical of once-popular languages, or they might be outliers. My personal suspicion is that Java has matured, and that its historical peak in relative interest is past, but that it will continue to be a major player for a good long time. But that's pure speculation. Android app development might be enough to drive it to a new peak, for example. I think it's safe to assume that new languages will continue to be invented (because programmers and computer scientists like to create them), and it seems likely that occasionally one will become popular, and it will take some share away from older languages. So over the long term I expect every language to show a downward trend. The question is how long that term is. People - including more than a few COBOL programmers - have been predicting the death of COBOL for at least a quarter-century. Micro Focus has been around since the '70s and we're selling more COBOL compiler and runtime licenses than ever. Do I think everyone's going to drop their favorite languages and switch to COBOL? Of course not. I think we're seeing a very long tail, and I think we'll see the same for Fortran, and eventually for C, and for Java, and so on. >> But as I noted, the TIOBE rankings are suspect. They're based on >> things like advertised positions and classes, so they mostly measure >> demand or perceived demand in various markets. > > Which is a good basis for deciding what skills to brush up on, don’t you > think? Depends on your goals, I suppose. I don't let TIOBE decide what I study, but then I'm not chasing entry-level positions where a language on a resume is considered a qualification. >> And simplistic interpretations of their data are likely to be >> misleading. For example, they rank COBOL at #37, well below, say, Logo >> (#24). (Time to brush up on those Logo skills!) But there are a few >> billion lines of COBOL application source code still under >> maintenance. They're rarely touched (indeed, businesses are >> tremendously wary of touching them), because they encode business >> rules. But they still exist and the programs compiled from them are >> still used. Does that mean COBOL is under-ranked? > > The code exists, but there’s less demand for humans to look at that code. > That’s what TIOBE is telling you. That's what TIOBE is claiming to tell me. It's not clear that's entirely correct. Also, as Joshua noted, TIOBE say that the rankings under #25 or so aren't meaningful, so my whole paragraph above is really unfounded speculation. I'm treating their report as having more precision than it claims. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 19:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.284dee553cc56ab498976c@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4757 |
In article <is0to0$b1k$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB says... > > I'd bet, these days, that the root cause of that situation is the fact > > that the three operating systems have *completely* different GUI's. > > > > for source compatibility, yes, cross-platform GUI is a big issue. > > > for binary compatibility, the much bigger issue is the lack of a common > set of binary formats, as well as different CPU architectures and > operating modes. CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. Linux, many BSDish operating systems, OS X and Windows all run primarily on Intel CPUs. However, you are right about executable formats. It would be less of an issue if OS X supported the Linux ELF format. FreeBSD is able to use ELF executables, but ELF is not that OS's native binary format. > my ideas for running C in a bytecoded VM, also just happened to include > ways of basically delaying final type specialization, many cases of > handling "#ifdef" blocks, ... until JIT time. But to me, that eliminates *the biggest* benefit to using C (and dealing with its hassles). -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 21:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <is1smu$k56$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4785 |
On 5/30/2011 7:12 PM, Steve Sobol wrote: > In article<is0to0$b1k$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB says... > >>> I'd bet, these days, that the root cause of that situation is the > fact >>> that the three operating systems have *completely* different GUI's. >>> >> >> for source compatibility, yes, cross-platform GUI is a big issue. >> >> >> for binary compatibility, the much bigger issue is the lack of a common >> set of binary formats, as well as different CPU architectures and >> operating modes. > > > CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. Linux, many > BSDish operating systems, OS X and Windows all run primarily on Intel > CPUs. > yes, but at the moment there are 2 partly incompatible operating modes: 32 and 64 bit mode... also, I prefer to say x86 CPUs, rather than Intel CPUs, since Intel is a particular company and not the sole supplier of x86 chips... hence, calling them Intel CPUs sort of discriminates against everyone who uses AMD and VIA chips. > However, you are right about executable formats. It would be less of an > issue if OS X supported the Linux ELF format. FreeBSD is able to use ELF > executables, but ELF is not that OS's native binary format. > or, everyone could use PE/COFF... well, other relevant issues: ABI differences; different system libraries; ... >> my ideas for running C in a bytecoded VM, also just happened to > include >> ways of basically delaying final type specialization, many cases of >> handling "#ifdef" blocks, ... until JIT time. > > But to me, that eliminates *the biggest* benefit to using C (and dealing > with its hassles). > in which way in particular?... much application code wouldn't likely notice much difference, and in many cases, early type-handling and doing preprocessor magic could still be done early (at compile time). if the post-JIT ABI were the same as the native C ABI, then there wouldn't even (particularly) be problems with native/VM code linking, or with using globs of assembler... IMO, "bytecoded" need not necessarily mean "terrible native-compiled C interface"... technically, my VMs mostly use the native C ABIs, differing mostly in terms of name mangling (I use a custom name-mangling convention for HLL functions) and simplifying some overly complex edge cases (such as the AMD64 struct-passing rules, ...). my own name-mangling rules and ABI were partly derived from the IA64 C++ ABI (used by GCC), but also somewhat from JNI and the JVM rules. ... or, is it more a worry that delaying some things until JIT-time could hurt the ability to produce as good of optimizations in the machine code?... FWIW, I wrote a C compiler before, just it was much closer to being standard C (rather than the somewhat tweaked version I was imagining). not sure if/when I would get around to the new ideas though... (mostly, I am working more on other things, and using my own custom HLL for a lot of this stuff...). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 17:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <isbkvi3me0@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4785 |
Steve Sobol wrote: > > CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. All the world's a VAX. Ah, well. More work for those of us who pay attention. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 18:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.28532ee34c0880e498977e@news.justthe.net> |
| In reply to | #4954 |
In article <isbkvi3me0@news3.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik says... > > Steve Sobol wrote: > > > > CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. > > All the world's a VAX. > > Ah, well. More work for those of us who pay attention. yeah, yeah, nice ad-hominem. Since you're going to be obnoxious, kindly tell me how many different architectures are in *wide* use today? Sure, there'll be exceptions to the rule... but... -- Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support sjsobol@JustThe.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 13:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <k0equ65crj1qkmae49mgi4ro3059uqb7de@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4965 |
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:48:54 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>In article <isbkvi3me0@news3.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik says...
>>
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>> >
>> > CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore.
>>
>> All the world's a VAX.
>>
>> Ah, well. More work for those of us who pay attention.
>yeah, yeah, nice ad-hominem. Since you're going to be obnoxious, kindly
>tell me how many different architectures are in *wide* use today?
Irrelevant. The question should be how many architectures are in
use for the particular app area. A widely-used architecture might not
be used in a particular app area.
>Sure, there'll be exceptions to the rule... but...
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-08 10:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Android?Why Dalvik? |
| Message-ID | <iso6au32sr7@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #4965 |
Steve Sobol wrote: > In article <isbkvi3me0@news3.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik says... >> Steve Sobol wrote: >>> CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. >> All the world's a VAX. >> >> Ah, well. More work for those of us who pay attention. > > yeah, yeah, nice ad-hominem. Since you're going to be obnoxious, kindly > tell me how many different architectures are in *wide* use today? In wide use? 8-bitters were still in the majority, according to the last reliable statistics I saw. Circa 2003, they represented ninety-some percent of all CPUs sold. There are still healthy markets for 16-bitters, DSPs, FPGAs, etc, too, in the embedded space. IBM sells about a billion dollars worth of z-architecture CPUs each financial quarter. They sell lots of POWER chips, both on the high end (p and i systems) and embedded. ARM outsells x86. SPARC and ia64 still have some market share. GPUs and CPU-GPU hybrids are growing fast as general-purpose systems. There are 50 million Cell-powered PS3s. 75 million Wiis with POWER CPUs. 54 million or so XBox 360s; its Xenon CPU is either a POWER derivative or a Cell derivative or both, depending on your interpretation. And that's a significant software market. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 12:10 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <isbt5q$dm0$2@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4785 |
In message <MPG.284dee553cc56ab498976c@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. If that were true, how come ARM is giving Intel a hiding in the smartphone and tablet space? > Linux, many BSDish operating systems, OS X and Windows all run primarily > on Intel CPUs. Guess which is the fastest-growing one? The one that also runs on ARM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isc312$dps$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4957 |
On 6/3/2011 5:10 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<MPG.284dee553cc56ab498976c@news.justthe.net>, Steve Sobol wrote: > >> CPU architectures aren't really a major issue anymore. > > If that were true, how come ARM is giving Intel a hiding in the smartphone > and tablet space? > partly it is because, if one looks back in time a little further: smartphones and tablets, in their present form, are partly an outgrowth of earlier cell-phones and PDAs... these were never really x86 dominated areas to begin with. previously, m68k and Z80 chips were still holding on strong, before getting largely displaced by ARM. now, one can ask how things would be, say, had all of these new smart-phones popping up, had been using a Z80 variant?... had smartphones and tablets instead more developed, say, as an outgrowth of making ever smaller laptops, then likely they would be running x86 instead. >> Linux, many BSDish operating systems, OS X and Windows all run primarily >> on Intel CPUs. > > Guess which is the fastest-growing one? The one that also runs on ARM. > actually, all of the above have ARM variants... Linux and FreeBSD are generally cross-platform OS's, and Linux on ARM is actually a notable target space (the Linux kernel is also the basis of both Android and Chrome). OSX has an ARM variant, namely, iOS, used on the iPhone and iPad. Windows also has an ARM variant, previously Windows CE, then Windows Mobile, now Windows Phone 7. but, still, grr, it is x86, not Intel, that is the focus of the matter. reasoning: a fair number of desktop PC's (around 20% AFAICT) actually run non-Intel CPUs (mostly AMD, with VIA controlling a smaller part of around 0.2%). x86-64 was actually AMD's creation, and Intel just sort of adopted it later when they started losing market share vs AMD. Intel promoted/marketed the Itanium / IA-64 architecture, which failed as far as the market goes. this means even Intel can't force people to buy an architecture they don't really want. AFAIK: VIA has a stronger holding on the market than Intel when it comes to ultramobile x86 processors, mostly because apparently the VIA Nano has both better performance and lower watts than the Intel Atom. the AMD Fusion has better performance than the Atom (and has a GPU), but is not as good WRT power use. or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 16:00 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <iscal7$l7l$4@lust.ihug.co.nz> |
| In reply to | #4966 |
In message <isc312$dps$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > OSX has an ARM variant, namely, iOS, used on the iPhone and iPad. Can it run OSX apps? > but, still, grr, it is x86, not Intel, that is the focus of the matter. In case you hadn’t noticed, smartphone unit shipments are now level-pegging with x86 PCs, and will probably surpass them in the next quarter or two.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 22:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iscecv$gt1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4969 |
On 6/3/2011 9:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<isc312$dps$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: > >> OSX has an ARM variant, namely, iOS, used on the iPhone and iPad. > > Can it run OSX apps? > it depends... AFAIK, the Xcode system produces binaries in the MachO format, which can generally target multiple architectures at the same time, so it is not entirely implausible that dual-target (OSX and iOS) binaries could be be possible to produce (realistically, dunno, depends partly on how Xcode works, which I have not really investigated, and I don't have a Mac either...). however, as-is, plain OSX apps will probably not work on iOS. also, iOS generally needs to be "jailbreaked" to run custom apps anyways (IIRC, prior to uploading to AppStore people run/debug their apps in an emulator...). >> but, still, grr, it is x86, not Intel, that is the focus of the matter. > > In case you hadn’t noticed, smartphone unit shipments are now level-pegging > with x86 PCs, and will probably surpass them in the next quarter or two. I expect they will probably start leveling off again once nearly everyone has one, as is usual for these types of things... but, the point of the above comment was not x86 vs ARM, but rather peoples' persistent use of "Intel" to describe all x86 chips, which is not really the case if people are running chips from another manufacturer... it is much like if one used the term "Windows" to describe every OS, including Linux and MacOSX, rather than a more generic term, like OS... but, anyways, I have before devised ideas for how one could JIT x86 code to ARM... but, whether or not this would be useful or not is less certain. I also have an x86 interpreter, which is based on using threaded code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abu Yahya <abu_yahya@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 23:28 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <isgg47$fga$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4972 |
On 6/4/2011 10:31 AM, BGB wrote: > On 6/3/2011 9:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message<isc312$dps$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >> >>> OSX has an ARM variant, namely, iOS, used on the iPhone and iPad. >> >> Can it run OSX apps? >> > > it depends... > > AFAIK, the Xcode system produces binaries in the MachO format, which can > generally target multiple architectures at the same time, so it is not > entirely implausible that dual-target (OSX and iOS) binaries could be be > possible to produce (realistically, dunno, depends partly on how Xcode > works, which I have not really investigated, and I don't have a Mac > either...). > > however, as-is, plain OSX apps will probably not work on iOS. > > also, iOS generally needs to be "jailbreaked" to run custom apps anyways > (IIRC, prior to uploading to AppStore people run/debug their apps in an > emulator...). Incorrect. You can use a provisioning profile to test out your app on a real device before you upload it to the AppStore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <isgkr1$to1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #4992 |
On 6/5/2011 10:58 AM, Abu Yahya wrote: > On 6/4/2011 10:31 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 6/3/2011 9:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> In message<isc312$dps$1@news.albasani.net>, BGB wrote: >>> >>>> OSX has an ARM variant, namely, iOS, used on the iPhone and iPad. >>> >>> Can it run OSX apps? >>> >> >> it depends... >> >> AFAIK, the Xcode system produces binaries in the MachO format, which can >> generally target multiple architectures at the same time, so it is not >> entirely implausible that dual-target (OSX and iOS) binaries could be be >> possible to produce (realistically, dunno, depends partly on how Xcode >> works, which I have not really investigated, and I don't have a Mac >> either...). >> >> however, as-is, plain OSX apps will probably not work on iOS. >> >> also, iOS generally needs to be "jailbreaked" to run custom apps anyways >> (IIRC, prior to uploading to AppStore people run/debug their apps in an >> emulator...). > > > Incorrect. You can use a provisioning profile to test out your app on a > real device before you upload it to the AppStore. as noted, I am not an iOS developer, so most of what I know comes from what I had read about and heard from others. I was not aware of there being such a provisioning profile. actually... sadly much of what I know of the topic came from an older smoking lady in one of the classes I was taking and who happened to develop apps for iOS and OSX and was rather vocal about the whole matter. meanwhile, I just recently proceeded to build my 3D engine project on Linux via VMware, but it performs terribly as apparently there is no HW accel, and so Mesa3D is running in software mode... but, it is still more convenient than having to reboot into Linux (my main OS is Windows...). so, in any case, emulators are probably not that terrible, either way...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web