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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35719

Re: Java is faster!

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/4/2016 5:08 AM, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>> That is just a new version with a new name.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime#Version_history
>>
>> All the restrictions still apply.
>
> You are right, I was googeling a little bit,
> its more a platform for C++, C#, VB and JavaScript,

It requires something that call use COM objects.

MS is not exactly emphasizing it in their marketing,
but WinRT/UWP is actually based on good old COM.

> even a jitting JVM would probably not run, since some
> special virtual memory ops are not available.
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13957609/would-java-virtual-machine-run-on-winrt

I think the answerer on SO misunderstood the question.

I am 99% sure that the question was about running Java on
Windows RT.

Windows RT = Windows for ARM CPU based systems

WinRT = Windows Runtime = framework/library for writing Metro/Modern/UWP 
apps

I do not see any technical problems making Java run on
Windows RT. Oracle already has Java running on ARM and
on Windows, so running on Windows on ARM should be
possible. As Windows RT was a commercial failure then
there is little business reason to make such a port.

Java on WinRT will have a lots of problems to overcome.
Due to the limited API available. It will be sort of
trying to get a Java EE application server running in
an applet. Best chance would probably be some flavor
of Java ME.

Or do a type of conversion from Java to UWP environment.

Arne

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Java is faster! Roedy Green <inquiry@mindprod.com> - 2016-09-30 03:05 -0700
  Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-01 12:50 +0200
    Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-01 12:53 +0200
      Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-01 11:36 -0400
        Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-01 23:39 +0200
          Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-02 08:32 -0400
            Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-02 18:36 +0200
              Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-02 20:08 -0400
                Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-03 10:54 +0200
                Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-03 10:55 +0200
                Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-03 11:01 +0200
                Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-03 19:56 -0400
                Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-04 11:08 +0200
                Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-04 19:50 -0400
                Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-03 19:59 -0400
                Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-03 20:04 -0400
                Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-03 20:14 -0400
      Re: Java is faster! Brixomatic <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-05 11:02 +0200
      Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-06 19:55 +0200
        Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-06 20:22 +0200
        Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-06 18:16 -0400
          Re: Java is faster! j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-07 02:51 +0200
            Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-08 09:56 -0400
    Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-01 11:19 -0400
  Re: Java is faster! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-01 11:12 -0400

csiph-web