Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: What's the best non-JVM native language to look at? Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <428f8206-d4f7-4fe6-b93c-8f881b498be6@googlegroups.com> <52db211d$0$304$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <52dc4c29$0$301$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e5160e2be48f1ea550cf61512446f525"; logging-data="9120"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/de2yDCFLBPEi+oCSO/rpeRHmZHiwxvA=" User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Cancel-Lock: sha1:R0Cjh44p0cYx/E2YkS4Drx51d1k= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:27351 On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:05:26 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Isn't that exactly what MS did with WinRT? > Thats what they *said* they did, but apparently what they said and what they did are not the same. Its not impossible: its only a matter of providing the same[*] API in an ARM box as is already implemented in an X86 box. Proof that this is quite possible is given by the seamless port of Debian Linux and the GNU C compiler toolset to the RaspberryPi (ARM) from the PC (X86). I know, because I've done it with both my own and some 3rd party packages, that you can use cvs to checkout a set of sources and makefiles from a PC running Linux to an RPi running Raspbian (the Debian port) and compile it without changing anything that was checked out. If the tiny Raspberry Pi Foundation can make this work, than Microsoft certainly should be able to do the same. [*] 'same' as in functionally identical interfaces after compiling them on any of the target hardware. > But I am not sure that it matters so much. Any attempt to use the same > UI on a phone and a PC will fail miserable. > Why do you say that? There's absolutely no excuse for file system APIs to differ If your OS exposes a set of, say, APIs to manage a graphical display, that should work on all hardware regardless of whether the code implementing the system side of the API is the same on all hardware or not. In fact I'd expect the system code to differ in order to do something sensible with the different screen sizes, pixel size and colour palettes supported by target hardware and to hide differences between a single-touch screen and a mouse. Again, this is nothing new. the X system works perfectly well on the RPi and can easily handle different screen sizes and resolutions. I can easily run code written for a WinCE-based PNA on a Windows box after its been recompiled. Actually its running on a remote Linux box under Wine and using my Linux laptop's display: the window it presents on the laptop is a lot bigger than the PNA's screen, but it has the same aspect ratio and much better resolution and, given that mouse clicks and drags and a keyboard are used instead of the single touch PNA screen with a graphical keyboard, inputs works exactly the same too. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |