Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9284 > unrolled thread

back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
                      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
                      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
                        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
                          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
                  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#9381

On 11/1/2011 11:42 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:29:31 -0500, jebblue<n@n.nnn>  wrote, quoted or
> indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>> and consider going back to .Net.
> That does not make sense.  The explosion in Java on cell-phones means
> a greater interest in Java generally, a greater demand for Java
> skills, and more places to exploit your own entrepreneurial Java
> tendencies.
>
> But then you posted for trollish motivations, no?

yeah....

it is complaining about something imperfect, for sake of something worse 
in these regards...


I don't personally advocate .NET, but both .NET and Java have things 
they have done well, and things they have done not-so-well (much like 
either vs C and C++).

no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...


my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very 
well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI 
mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed 
Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific 
features or 3rd party tools).

however, it does have a fairly comprehensive standard API, which makes 
it fairly usable if doing Java-only development (just nevermind 
mixed-language apps...).

granted, I don't think these are likely "severe" issues, as most people 
will make due and live with whatever are the issues and limitations of 
their chosen strategies and technologies.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9391

On 11/2/2011 1:22 PM, BGB wrote:
> no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...

Yes.

> my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very
> well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI
> mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed
> Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific
> features or 3rd party tools).

Native does not match well with the WORA goal.

If you really need to mix with native, then there are most likely
better languages than Java.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9417

On 11/2/2011 3:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 1:22 PM, BGB wrote:
>> no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...
>
> Yes.
>
>> my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very
>> well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI
>> mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed
>> Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific
>> features or 3rd party tools).
>
> Native does not match well with the WORA goal.
>
> If you really need to mix with native, then there are most likely
> better languages than Java.
>

coupling policy with language design is IMO bad in general.

a language should ideally allow WORA or allow not using WORA, at the 
free choice of the developer, rather than having it forced on them by 
the particular language (or the design philosophy of said language).

this way, one can use full OS features, say, on a desktop PC, but have 
it still run on a small embedded device, as the features will simply 
"magically disable" when the code runs on a target where they don't exist.

this would be much better than the present situation, which is more 
either "don't use any system-specific features" or "be willing to run 
into a brick wall if feature X is not available".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9483

On 11/2/2011 11:10 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 3:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 1:22 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very
>>> well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI
>>> mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed
>>> Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific
>>> features or 3rd party tools).
>>
>> Native does not match well with the WORA goal.
>>
>> If you really need to mix with native, then there are most likely
>> better languages than Java.
>>
>
> coupling policy with language design is IMO bad in general.
>
> a language should ideally allow WORA or allow not using WORA, at the
> free choice of the developer, rather than having it forced on them by
> the particular language (or the design philosophy of said language).
>
> this way, one can use full OS features, say, on a desktop PC, but have
> it still run on a small embedded device, as the features will simply
> "magically disable" when the code runs on a target where they don't exist.
>
> this would be much better than the present situation, which is more
> either "don't use any system-specific features" or "be willing to run
> into a brick wall if feature X is not available".

I disagree.

I don't believe in the "on language that is good at everything"
philosophy.

I believe in multiple languages for different purposes.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9799

On 11/3/2011 5:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 11:10 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 3:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 1:22 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>> no options are perfect, so, there are always merits and tradeoffs...
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> my main personal dislike of Java is mostly that it doesn't deal very
>>>> well with heterogeneous environments, and its existing standard FFI
>>>> mechanisms (JNI, JNA, ...) are decidedly not-very-good (making mixed
>>>> Java/C++ apps rather painful absent reliance either on VM-specific
>>>> features or 3rd party tools).
>>>
>>> Native does not match well with the WORA goal.
>>>
>>> If you really need to mix with native, then there are most likely
>>> better languages than Java.
>>>
>>
>> coupling policy with language design is IMO bad in general.
>>
>> a language should ideally allow WORA or allow not using WORA, at the
>> free choice of the developer, rather than having it forced on them by
>> the particular language (or the design philosophy of said language).
>>
>> this way, one can use full OS features, say, on a desktop PC, but have
>> it still run on a small embedded device, as the features will simply
>> "magically disable" when the code runs on a target where they don't 
>> exist.
>>
>> this would be much better than the present situation, which is more
>> either "don't use any system-specific features" or "be willing to run
>> into a brick wall if feature X is not available".
>
> I disagree.
>
> I don't believe in the "on language that is good at everything"
> philosophy.
>
> I believe in multiple languages for different purposes.
>

fair enough...

doesn't mean it is ideal to couple policy with language though, as 
policy is a separate matter from utility:
one is philosophical, the other practical.

for a language to be regarded as general-purpose, but to inhibit certain 
uses as contrary to philosophy, is IMO disagreeable.

it would IMO be better treated as a matter of a technical deficiency.
typically though, people will try to address deficiencies, but people 
often make little effort to address problems with policy or philosophy.

so, it is an issue...


it would be much like if one went and (somehow) put a bunch of religious 
references into the design of a language (and lots of evangelizing in 
the documentation), and then assert that the language was not intended 
to be used by non-believers. some others might (probably rightly) regard 
such a policy as silly/stupid.


personally, I don't believe WORA and having a non-terrible FFI are 
mutually opposed, but is rather a technical matter to be addressed (how 
to effectively glue against other languages without compromising 
portability, ...).

whether or not people use a feature, or how they use it, is then their 
issue.

granted, this doesn't mean I am opposed to the use of lint tools or 
security mechanisms as a means to enforce policy, but this is a separate 
matter (security then as a deliberate means to disallow a particular 
action, rather than as a design limitation).

an example would be if, albeit the language has a strong FFI, maybe only 
certain code would be allowed to use it (code which violates security 
policies then being rejected as such).

simply having a poor FFI though accomplishes neither goal.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9389

On 11/2/2011 2:42 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:29:31 -0500, jebblue<n@n.nnn>  wrote, quoted or
> indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>> and consider going back to .Net.
>
> That does not make sense.  The explosion in Java on cell-phones means
> a greater interest in Java generally, a greater demand for Java
> skills, and more places to exploit your own entrepreneurial Java
> tendencies.

Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.

And Java SE is not there.

The only thing out there is Android.

You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
its challenges in the cellphone market.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9397

On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.


You mean Java ME has been deprecated by developers?  Not sure, just asking.


> And Java SE is not there.
>
> The only thing out there is Android.


While I was ranting about compatibility earlier, I should have added 
that I think the best thing for Google and Android to do is to trade 
some cash and code for rights, and make Android the new Java ME, and 
bury Java ME in the darkest hole available.  If we could at least reduce 
the available standards, I think we'd all actually have something more.


> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
> its challenges in the cellphone market.


Don't know about this.  Java seems to be doing well under Android.  I 
think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own 
proprietary stuff.

A big win for Java, if Oracle is smart, would be to get Google to 
support the full Java SE runtime on the larger Android devices, like 
tablets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9400

On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.
>
> You mean Java ME has been deprecated by developers? Not sure, just asking.

The capabilities of modern smartphones and the possibilities of
Java ME does not really match.

Developer interest for Java ME is pretty low today.

Only smartphone provider still supporting Java ME is RIM (BB).

>> And Java SE is not there.
>>
>> The only thing out there is Android.
>
> While I was ranting about compatibility earlier, I should have added
> that I think the best thing for Google and Android to do is to trade
> some cash and code for rights, and make Android the new Java ME, and
> bury Java ME in the darkest hole available. If we could at least reduce
> the available standards, I think we'd all actually have something more.

Yes!

Java ME SCDC (Super Connected Device Configuration)!!

>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>
>
> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
> proprietary stuff.

Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.

That is a lower market share than Java ME had in the dumbphone
market.

> A big win for Java, if Oracle is smart, would be to get Google to
> support the full Java SE runtime on the larger Android devices, like
> tablets.

Yes!!!

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9418

On 11/2/2011 3:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.
>>
>> You mean Java ME has been deprecated by developers? Not sure, just
>> asking.
>
> The capabilities of modern smartphones and the possibilities of
> Java ME does not really match.
>
> Developer interest for Java ME is pretty low today.
>

granted, Java ME (AKA: JME or J2ME) can be taken as a sort of "baseline 
Java subset", since it represents roughly the core feature-set of the 
language (absent GUI or the mountain of "other stuff" found in Java SE), 
nevermind if Java ME proper is not in-itself sufficient to do a whole 
lot useful with it.


> Only smartphone provider still supporting Java ME is RIM (BB).
>

what about Java ME for non-standard JVM's on the PC?...

ok, nevermind, I implemented such a beast, and it was rather lame.
(I tried using it, I was not terribly compelled to use it...).


granted, Java ME is "reasonably close" to the "common API subset" 
between Java and my own language (BGBScript), however the packages were 
renamed (mostly from "java.lang" and "java.io" and similar to 
"bsvm.lang" and "bsvm.io" and similar), and also the HLL is a bit 
different (the syntax is much closer to ActionScript).

technically, this library code was essentially just the class-library 
code I wrote for my half-assed J2ME (CLDC) implementation (written clean 
going from the specs), but similarly half-assedly ported to BGBScript. 
likewise goes for some amount of VM architecture and similar.

more common at the moment though is to do stuff via just using the FFI 
to call into C land.


>>> And Java SE is not there.
>>>
>>> The only thing out there is Android.
>>
>> While I was ranting about compatibility earlier, I should have added
>> that I think the best thing for Google and Android to do is to trade
>> some cash and code for rights, and make Android the new Java ME, and
>> bury Java ME in the darkest hole available. If we could at least reduce
>> the available standards, I think we'd all actually have something more.
>
> Yes!
>
> Java ME SCDC (Super Connected Device Configuration)!!
>

yes, except there would be a few possible edge-cases between this and 
Java SE.

it would seem a little silly to have both the Android GUI and AWT/Swing 
on all targets. I would personally rather have Android gain a more 
"sane" GUI (such as Swing), than be faced with their GUI funkiness 
elsewhere.


>>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>>
>>
>> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
>> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
>> proprietary stuff.
>
> Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.
>

yeah.

Android is C, C++, and Java.
iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.

there seems maybe there is a pattern...


funny thing is, I can write some C code, and have it work mostly 
unmodified between Windows (x86/x64), Linux (x86/x86-64/ARM), Android, ...

yes, it does require a few ifdef's, and per-target build files, 
recompilation, ... but technically it does work.

it could presumably also be made to work on iOS and WP, except I lack 
any devices to test with.

which is more portable then?...


note, this is not intended as me "hating on" Java, but rather matters as 
they would seem to be.


> That is a lower market share than Java ME had in the dumbphone
> market.
>

yep, sad.



>> A big win for Java, if Oracle is smart, would be to get Google to
>> support the full Java SE runtime on the larger Android devices, like
>> tablets.
>
> Yes!!!
>

agreed...

convincing them to make it better is a much better option than trying to 
sue them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9494

On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 3:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.
>>>
>>> You mean Java ME has been deprecated by developers? Not sure, just
>>> asking.
>>
>> The capabilities of modern smartphones and the possibilities of
>> Java ME does not really match.
>>
>> Developer interest for Java ME is pretty low today.
>
> granted, Java ME (AKA: JME or J2ME) can be taken as a sort of "baseline
> Java subset", since it represents roughly the core feature-set of the
> language (absent GUI or the mountain of "other stuff" found in Java SE),
> nevermind if Java ME proper is not in-itself sufficient to do a whole
> lot useful with it.

It is Java 1.3.1 which is bloody old.

>> Only smartphone provider still supporting Java ME is RIM (BB).
>
> what about Java ME for non-standard JVM's on the PC?...

I don't think there has ever been much of a market there.

>>>> And Java SE is not there.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing out there is Android.
>>>
>>> While I was ranting about compatibility earlier, I should have added
>>> that I think the best thing for Google and Android to do is to trade
>>> some cash and code for rights, and make Android the new Java ME, and
>>> bury Java ME in the darkest hole available. If we could at least reduce
>>> the available standards, I think we'd all actually have something more.
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>> Java ME SCDC (Super Connected Device Configuration)!!
>>
>
> yes, except there would be a few possible edge-cases between this and
> Java SE.
>
> it would seem a little silly to have both the Android GUI and AWT/Swing
> on all targets. I would personally rather have Android gain a more
> "sane" GUI (such as Swing), than be faced with their GUI funkiness
> elsewhere.

I doubt that Swing would work well on Android phones.

Maybe JavaFX.

But anyway - it is way to late - the Android is here to stay.

>>>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>>>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
>>> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
>>> proprietary stuff.
>>
>> Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.
>>
>
> yeah.
>
> Android is C, C++, and Java.
> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>
> there seems maybe there is a pattern...

Not really.

Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for 
certain things)

Apps for Android is Objective-C

Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET

C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
for OS, VM's etc..

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9510

On 11-11-03 10:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>>
>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>
>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
> certain things)
> 
> Apps for Android is Objective-C
> 
> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
> 
> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
> for OS, VM's etc..
> 
> Arne

I understand that in the context of writing phone apps that one can say
only "app" and be understood. Even so, that last sentence just sounded
wrong. :-) Better to qualify the word "app" there, since these posts may
be read by a wider audience.

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9522

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> BGB wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
> 
>>>
>>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>>
>>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>> 
>> Not really.
>> 
>> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
>> certain things)
>> 
>> Apps for [iPhone] is Objective-C
>> 
>> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>> 
>> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
>> for OS, VM's etc..
> 
> I understand that in the context of writing phone apps that one can say
> only "app" and be understood. Even so, that last sentence just sounded
> wrong. :-) Better to qualify the word "app" there, since these posts may
> be read by a wider audience.

I thought "Apps for Android", etc., did qualify the word "app" there already.  It didn't seem ambiguous from here.

But additional rigorous detail is not necessarily a bad thing, so in the end I don't disagree entirely.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9530

On 11/4/2011 4:50 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> On 11-11-03 10:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>
>>>
>>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>>
>>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
>> certain things)
>>
>> Apps for Android is Objective-C
>>
>> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>>
>> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
>> for OS, VM's etc..
>
> I understand that in the context of writing phone apps that one can say
> only "app" and be understood. Even so, that last sentence just sounded
> wrong. :-) Better to qualify the word "app" there, since these posts may
> be read by a wider audience.

True.

C/C++ is practically not used for smartphone apps - C/C++ is
obviously used a lot for smartphone OS, VM's etc..

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9531

On 11-11-04 06:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 4:50 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> On 11-11-03 10:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
>> [ SNIP ]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>>>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>>>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>>>
>>>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
>>> certain things)
>>>
>>> Apps for Android is Objective-C
>>>
>>> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>>>
>>> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
>>> for OS, VM's etc..
>>
>> I understand that in the context of writing phone apps that one can say
>> only "app" and be understood. Even so, that last sentence just sounded
>> wrong. :-) Better to qualify the word "app" there, since these posts may
>> be read by a wider audience.
> 
> True.
> 
> C/C++ is practically not used for smartphone apps - C/C++ is
> obviously used a lot for smartphone OS, VM's etc..
> 
> Arne

Thank you, sir. :-)

Seriously, that just sounds better.

AHS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9800

On 11/3/2011 6:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 3:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> Java ME has imploded in the cellphone market in recent years.
>>>>
>>>> You mean Java ME has been deprecated by developers? Not sure, just
>>>> asking.
>>>
>>> The capabilities of modern smartphones and the possibilities of
>>> Java ME does not really match.
>>>
>>> Developer interest for Java ME is pretty low today.
>>
>> granted, Java ME (AKA: JME or J2ME) can be taken as a sort of "baseline
>> Java subset", since it represents roughly the core feature-set of the
>> language (absent GUI or the mountain of "other stuff" found in Java SE),
>> nevermind if Java ME proper is not in-itself sufficient to do a whole
>> lot useful with it.
>
> It is Java 1.3.1 which is bloody old.
>
>>> Only smartphone provider still supporting Java ME is RIM (BB).
>>
>> what about Java ME for non-standard JVM's on the PC?...
>
> I don't think there has ever been much of a market there.
>
>>>>> And Java SE is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing out there is Android.
>>>>
>>>> While I was ranting about compatibility earlier, I should have added
>>>> that I think the best thing for Google and Android to do is to trade
>>>> some cash and code for rights, and make Android the new Java ME, and
>>>> bury Java ME in the darkest hole available. If we could at least 
>>>> reduce
>>>> the available standards, I think we'd all actually have something 
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> Yes!
>>>
>>> Java ME SCDC (Super Connected Device Configuration)!!
>>>
>>
>> yes, except there would be a few possible edge-cases between this and
>> Java SE.
>>
>> it would seem a little silly to have both the Android GUI and AWT/Swing
>> on all targets. I would personally rather have Android gain a more
>> "sane" GUI (such as Swing), than be faced with their GUI funkiness
>> elsewhere.
>
> I doubt that Swing would work well on Android phones.
>
> Maybe JavaFX.
>
> But anyway - it is way to late - the Android is here to stay.
>
>>>>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>>>>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
>>>> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
>>>> proprietary stuff.
>>>
>>> Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.
>>>
>>
>> yeah.
>>
>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>
>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>
> Not really.
>
> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for 
> certain things)
>
> Apps for Android is Objective-C
>
> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>
> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
> for OS, VM's etc..
>

but, the same code can be used for all these, whereas the "app" code 
would otherwise have to be almost entirely rewritten for each target.

this may not matter as much if ones "app" is essentially just a GUI with 
a small amount of internal logic (not a lot that can be reasonably made 
portable between UI frameworks), but if non-trivial amounts of code is 
involved, then one is left having to fallback to C or C++...

practically, in my case, the GUI framework portability issue has mostly 
led to me using OpenGL for most UIs, as GL tends to be a bit more 
commonly available than most other options WRT the GUI.

granted, yes, this means that the logic for the UI tends to become 
itself somewhat less "trivial", as one essentially has to transport the 
toolkit/fonts/... with the app.


so, it is tradeoffs...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9809

On 11/9/2011 12:11 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 6:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 3:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>>>>>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
>>>>> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
>>>>> proprietary stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.
>>>>
>>>
>>> yeah.
>>>
>>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>>
>>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
>> certain things)
>>
>> Apps for Android is Objective-C
>>
>> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>>
>> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
>> for OS, VM's etc..
>>
>
> but, the same code can be used for all these, whereas the "app" code
> would otherwise have to be almost entirely rewritten for each target.
>
> this may not matter as much if ones "app" is essentially just a GUI with
> a small amount of internal logic (not a lot that can be reasonably made
> portable between UI frameworks), but if non-trivial amounts of code is
> involved, then one is left having to fallback to C or C++...

But GUI is usually a very big portion of smartphone apps.

And if portability is a requirement then the solution is not C/C++
(I don't even think WP allows it) - it is PhoneGap and similar.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9820

On 11/9/2011 6:24 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 11/9/2011 12:11 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 6:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2011 11:53 PM, BGB wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2011 3:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2011 6:26 PM, markspace wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2011 3:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> You could say that is not bad, but Java certainly has
>>>>>>> its challenges in the cellphone market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know about this. Java seems to be doing well under Android. I
>>>>>> think its major challenge is that Apple insists on running their own
>>>>>> proprietary stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither iOS nor WP supports Java. Only Android.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yeah.
>>>>
>>>> Android is C, C++, and Java.
>>>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C.
>>>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#.
>>>>
>>>> there seems maybe there is a pattern...
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for
>>> certain things)
>>>
>>> Apps for Android is Objective-C
>>>
>>> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET
>>>
>>> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot
>>> for OS, VM's etc..
>>>
>>
>> but, the same code can be used for all these, whereas the "app" code
>> would otherwise have to be almost entirely rewritten for each target.
>>
>> this may not matter as much if ones "app" is essentially just a GUI with
>> a small amount of internal logic (not a lot that can be reasonably made
>> portable between UI frameworks), but if non-trivial amounts of code is
>> involved, then one is left having to fallback to C or C++...
>
> But GUI is usually a very big portion of smartphone apps.
>

maybe, but if anything this is an indication that such apps are 
generally fairly small (under 100 kloc? under 500 kloc? ...).


if one has 25 kloc of GUI-related code, but the app is only 30 kloc, 
well then, GUI is a big part of the app, but it is also a fairly small 
app as well.


> And if portability is a requirement then the solution is not C/C++
> (I don't even think WP allows it) - it is PhoneGap and similar.
>

I am pretty sure one can write WP apps in C / C++...

it is ARM, so one has to compile ARM based binaries, but no huge issue 
there (just get the right SDK). just like the XBox360, one writes apps 
in C / C++, and needs the right SDK, because the thing is PowerPC based...

but, Java isn't really an option either, since iOS and WP don't really 
support it, nor does the XBox360 AFAIK.


just one has to give up on the idea of having a single binary for every 
target, just rebuilding for each target, and probably having a fair 
amount of target-specific code related to the UI and other things.


in my case, for targeting some of my stuff to Android, I would have 
probably just stuck with an OpenGL-based GUI interface, but the main 
issue would have been dealing with the funky build process used on 
Android (NDK funkiness), followed by having to make my stuff usable from 
a stylus-driven interface (a big issue, as a lot of my UI design stuff 
sort of assumes a mouse+keyboard interface).

the "first hop" in my case was porting my stuff to Linux on ARM (mostly 
successful), and working on reducing memory requirements and similar. I 
never got around to trying to build it on Android, mostly due to the 
realization of the UI issue.

another uncertainty was the point of porting my stuff to Android.


I guess the big issue would be thinking up something that would actually 
work well with a stylus-driven interface.

somehow I think it is probably not an FPS game.


I guess a related mystery would be how soon until someone figures they 
"must have" an Android port of Emacs...


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web