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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235427 > unrolled thread

the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?)

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-08-28 20:27 -0300
    Re: the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 01:30 +0000
      Re: the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-08-29 15:24 -0300
        Re: the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-29 21:57 +0000

#235427 — the history of Java in Android (was Re: What’s Your Least Favourite Programming Language?)

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 16:43:56 -0300, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> But J2SE was available in an open-source form, namely OpenJDK. So
>>> they adapted that instead.
>>
>> With respect, I think you may have gotten this wrong. Originally
>> they used Apache Harmony (presumably they preferred its non-copyleft
>> licensing) but switched to OpenJDK in 02016 in response to the
>> Oracle lawsuit
>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/>
>
> You are mixing up the language implementation with the library
> implementation.

Your statement, “So [the Android team] adapted [OpenJDK] instead [when
they could have chosen J2ME],” is not true of *either* the language
implementation (Dalvik) *or* the library implementation (initially they
adapted Harmony, and many years later they adapted OpenJDK).

Kragen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#235431

On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:27:04 -0300, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 16:43:56 -0300, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> But J2SE was available in an open-source form, namely OpenJDK. So
>>>> they adapted that instead.
>>>
>>> With respect, I think you may have gotten this wrong. Originally
>>> they used Apache Harmony (presumably they preferred its non-copyleft
>>> licensing) but switched to OpenJDK in 02016 in response to the
>>> Oracle lawsuit
>>> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/>
>>
>> You are mixing up the language implementation with the library
>> implementation.
>
> Your statement, “So [the Android team] adapted [OpenJDK] instead [when
> they could have chosen J2ME],” is not true of *either* the language
> implementation (Dalvik) *or* the library implementation (initially they
> adapted Harmony, and many years later they adapted OpenJDK).

“Dalvik” was the original bytecode interpreter that Google came up
with for Android. That was not a “language implementation” for any
particular “language”.

By “language implementation” I was talking about SunJDK versus
OpenJDK.

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

#235454

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:27:04 -0300, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>> Your statement, “So [the Android team] adapted [OpenJDK] instead [when
>> they could have chosen J2ME],” is not true of *either* the language
>> implementation (Dalvik) *or* the library implementation (initially they
>> adapted Harmony, and many years later they adapted OpenJDK).
>
> “Dalvik” was the original bytecode interpreter that Google came up
> with for Android. That was not a “language implementation” for any
> particular “language”.
>
> By “language implementation” I was talking about SunJDK versus
> OpenJDK.

We've agreed that they weren’t using the Sun JDK’s class library;
instead they used Apache Harmony.  We've agreed that they weren’t using
the Sun JDK’s bytecode interpreter; instead they used Dalvik.  I'm
pretty sure they weren’t using the Sun JDK’s compiler from Java source
to Java bytecode, because Dalvik couldn’t interpret the standard
stack-oriented JVM bytecode.  Was there some other part of the Sun JDK
that they *were* using?  If so, what part?  What does the JDK contain,
other than the class library, the virtual machine, and the compiler to
that virtual machine?

Kragen

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

#235469

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 15:24:51 -0300, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:

> I'm pretty sure they weren’t using the Sun JDK’s compiler from Java
> source to Java bytecode, because Dalvik couldn’t interpret the
> standard stack-oriented JVM bytecode.

The whole point about using Sun’s JDK was precisely to get its
compiler.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web