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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #30313 > unrolled thread

Java ME or SE?

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

Contents

  Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-09 00:58 +1100
    Re: Java ME or SE? Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-08 09:27 -0800
    Re: Java ME or SE? Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> - 2014-11-08 16:17 -0600
      Re: Java ME or SE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-11-08 17:38 -0500
        Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-09 15:51 +1100
    Re: Java ME or SE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-11-08 17:42 -0500
    Re: Java ME or SE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-11-08 18:11 -0800
      Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-09 11:51 +0000
      Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-11-09 12:36 +0000
        Re: Java ME or SE? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-11-09 13:28 +0000
          Re: Java ME or SE? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-11-10 10:00 +0000
      Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-11 01:41 +1100
        Re: Java ME or SE? cl@isbd.net - 2014-11-10 16:48 +0000
          [OT] Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 13:57 -0500
        Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-10 21:15 +0000
          Re: Java ME or SE? Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2014-11-10 23:51 +0100
            Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-11 00:37 +0000
              Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 20:11 -0500
                Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 20:45 -0500
            Re: Java ME or SE? Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2014-11-11 07:00 +0100
              Re: Java ME or SE? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-11-11 09:46 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#30313 — Java ME or SE?

I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
but that's not relevant here).

Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.

I would appreciate your advice.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#30314

On 11/8/2014 05:58, Gordon Levi wrote:
> I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
> Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
> but that's not relevant here).
>
> Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
> requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
> use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.
>
> I would appreciate your advice.
>

I've just started dabbling with a Raspberry Pi.  I've got a potential 
project that is going to use about 60 of them.  It will be programmed in 
Java and I've played with SE 1.8 a little bit on it.  I'm impressed with 
how well it seems to work.  We've tested some existing software on the 
Pi and it functions fine.

I've done a little programming with Pi4J and a PiGlow and that works 
fine too.  I haven't done in GPIO with it yet but I'm assuming it will 
be fine too.

-- 

Knute Johnson

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

#30315

Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> writes:
>I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
>Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
>but that's not relevant here).

>Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
>requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
>use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.

JavaME still exists? 
-- 
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us

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

#30316

On 11/8/2014 5:17 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> writes:
>> I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
>> Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
>> but that's not relevant here).
>
>> Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
>> requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
>> use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.
>
> JavaME still exists?

Yes.

Java ME 8.0 is current and 8.1 is out in early access version.

Arne

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

#30323

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

>On 11/8/2014 5:17 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote:
>> Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> writes:
>>> I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
>>> Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
>>> but that's not relevant here).
>>
>>> Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
>>> requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
>>> use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.
>>
>> JavaME still exists?
>
>Yes.
>
>Java ME 8.0 is current and 8.1 is out in early access version.

And Oracle provides a free on-line course to teach Java ME on the
Raspberry Pi using Netbeans on Windows as the development environment
<http://tinyurl.com/qga4yfz>. 8.1 is required because it fixes a bug
in 8.0 that prevented the GPS UART used in the course from working. 

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

#30317

On 11/8/2014 8:58 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> I'm currently programming some low level hardware access on a
> Raspberry Pi and I'm deciding between Java ME and Java SE (and Python
> but that's not relevant here).
>
> Java ME includes direct access to the hardware but SE currently
> requires a third party library. I am inclined to favour SE because I
> use it for everything else and I think it will outlive ME.
>
> I would appreciate your advice.

I would go for SE if it is available.

One knows what is in SE.

Very few understand exactly what is in which flavor of ME.

And I do not see much room for ME between SE Embedded and Android in
the future either.

Arne

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

#30321

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:58:10 +1100, Gordon Levi
<gordon@address.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

>I would appreciate your advice.

Is an Android OS and Java available?

Have a look at how few third party serial and USB drivers are still
supported.

http://mindprod.com/jgloss/serialport.html

What are all the other pi folk using?
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
~ Niklaus Wirth (born: 1934-02-15 age: 80) Wirth’s Law

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

#30324

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 18:11:10 -0800, Roedy Green wrote:

> What are all the other pi folk using?
>
As an OS?  Raspbian, mostly - its Debian Linux Stable (Wheezy) ported to 
the MPU chip, which contains both an ARM core and a GPU with 512MB RAM 
piggy-backed onto it. 

The only real oddity is the boot system, which is two stage: the GPU 
loads and runs the phase 1 bootstrap from a FAT partition and this loads 
Raspbian into the ARM mpu from the main ext3 partition. Apparently that's 
the easiest way to boot anything on that chip. AFAIK all OSes (RISCOS and 
Fedora for sure - there may be others) that have been ported to the RPi 
use this boot system.  Both partitions are on the SD card the RPi uses as 
mass storage.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#30325

In article <j2jt5al8qhfjans2n77p4tof3gsl7ufpva@4ax.com>,
Roedy Green  <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:58:10 +1100, Gordon Levi
><gordon@address.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
>who said :
>
>>I would appreciate your advice.
>
>Is an Android OS and Java available?
>
>Have a look at how few third party serial and USB drivers are still
>supported.
>
>http://mindprod.com/jgloss/serialport.html
>
>What are all the other pi folk using?

To program? C and BASIC.

Others use Python.

Gordon

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

#30326

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:36:37 +0000, Gordon Henderson wrote:

> In article <j2jt5al8qhfjans2n77p4tof3gsl7ufpva@4ax.com>,
> Roedy Green  <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:58:10 +1100, Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid>
>>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>
>>>I would appreciate your advice.
>>
>>Is an Android OS and Java available?
>>
>>Have a look at how few third party serial and USB drivers are still
>>supported.
>>
>>http://mindprod.com/jgloss/serialport.html
>>
>>What are all the other pi folk using?
> 
> To program? C and BASIC.
> 
> Others use Python.
> 
> Gordon

and there is even at least one guy using Forth :-)
python is probably eased for development & prototyping C or assembler for 
when performance really is an issue (it is surprising how often python is 
more than fast enough for real world requirements).




-- 
I was born in a Hostess Cupcake factory before the sexual revolution!

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

#30328

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 13:28:58 GMT, alister
<alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>and there is even at least one guy using Forth :-)

I know of many more users and one of them is already shipping
commercial products based on RPi hardware.

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

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

#30329

Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:58:10 +1100, Gordon Levi
><gordon@address.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
>who said :
>
>>I would appreciate your advice.
>
>Is an Android OS

Yes, why do you ask?

I'm familiar with Ubuntu which is a variation of Debian. Raspbian,
which is also a variant of Debian, is probably the most popular OS for
the Pi so I had no hesitation in choosing it.
> and Java available?
>
>Have a look at how few third party serial and USB drivers are still
>supported.
>
>http://mindprod.com/jgloss/serialport.html

As you say on that page, libUSB provides access to USB ports. As it
happens what I want to use has a standard /dev/TTY* driver. I gather
that there are other drivers that map USB devices to Java supported
Linux devices
<http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=69232>.
>
>What are all the other pi folk using?

The Raspberry Pi Foundation is an educational organisation aimed at
teenagers. Like almost all their predecessors since Dartmouth BASIC
they chose an interpreted language. It was Python and I probably would
have followed them if Guido van Rossum had not done exactly what
Microsoft did to me with Visual Basic classic. They made all my VB
programs obsolete. Van Rossum released Python 3 which is not backwards
compatible with Python 2!

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

#30330

Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
> Microsoft did to me with Visual Basic classic. They made all my VB
> programs obsolete. Van Rossum released Python 3 which is not backwards
> compatible with Python 2!

... but it's fairly close.  You can't expect a language (or anything
else) to progress for ever without some incompatibility with earlier
versions.  Even within the 2.x tree there are minor incompatibilities. 

If you write code in good style for Python 2.7 it will quite often
work in 3.x as well.

-- 
Chris Green
·

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

#30331 — [OT] Re: Java ME or SE?

On 11/10/2014 11:48 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
> Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Microsoft did to me with Visual Basic classic. They made all my VB
>> programs obsolete. Van Rossum released Python 3 which is not backwards
>> compatible with Python 2!
>
> ... but it's fairly close.  You can't expect a language (or anything
> else) to progress for ever without some incompatibility with earlier
> versions.  Even within the 2.x tree there are minor incompatibilities.
>
> If you write code in good style for Python 2.7 it will quite often
> work in 3.x as well.

     "Write Once, Run Somewhere?"

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

#30333

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 01:41:45 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

It was Python and I probably would have
> followed them if Guido van Rossum had not done exactly what Microsoft
> did to me with Visual Basic classic. They made all my VB programs
> obsolete. Van Rossum released Python 3 which is not backwards compatible
> with Python 2!
>
That's a main reason I don't use Python.

A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in the 
past, including those using the original K&R syntax. 

Same goes for Java compilers.

IIRC the same applies to Fortran compilers.

In view of this, it seems odd that Python can't or won't do the same.
I think this puts Python in the same retarded bracket as BASIC, COBOL, 
and RPG. All of these suffer from having source code that cannot 
guarantee to be be compiled by any compiler other than the one they were 
originally developed for.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#30334

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in
> the past, including those using the original K&R syntax.
>
> Same goes for Java compilers.
>
> IIRC the same applies to Fortran compilers.

The biggest problem with ancient C or Fortran code is probably not the
compiling step but linking against recent -not backwards compatible-
libraries. A lot of old code will not build on modern systems without
modification.

Regards,

Kees.

-- 
Kees Theunissen.

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

#30335

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:51:48 +0100, Kees Theunissen wrote:

> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in the
>> past, including those using the original K&R syntax.
>>
>> Same goes for Java compilers.
>>
>> IIRC the same applies to Fortran compilers.
> 
> The biggest problem with ancient C or Fortran code is probably not the
> compiling step but linking against recent -not backwards compatible-
> libraries. A lot of old code will not build on modern systems without
> modification.
>
Agreed, but it will compile and writing an adaptor layer to let it call a 
modern library is probably a lot easier then adapting the old source, 
particularly if its a large, badly documented program. 

But with Python and other languages whose compilers aren't backward 
compatible, you don't have the option of writing an adaptor layer. 
Instead, you're forced to review/rewrite your source code every time the 
language spec changes, which is typically every 2 to 5 years for most 
languages. 


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

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

#30336

On 11/10/2014 7:37 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:51:48 +0100, Kees Theunissen wrote:
>
>> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in the
>>> past, including those using the original K&R syntax.

     Well, no: It won't *always* compile.

	#include <strings.h>  /* <string.h> nowadays */

	#include <malloc.h>  /* <stdarg.h> nowadays, sort of */

	#include <varargs.h>
	/* ... and the not-quite-compatible consequents thereof */

	#include <stdio.h>
	...	
	char *p = sprintf(...);  /* worked in some old C's, not today */

	enum permissiveness { allow, forbid, restrict };

	enum roller_skate_type { side_by_side, inline };

	processTransaction(tptr, void)
	    Transaction *tptr;  /* the transaction to process */
	    int void;           /* flag: true to void the transaction */
	{ ... }

	extern char *malloc();
	...
	float matrix = (float*) malloc(rows * cols * sizeof(float));
	/* This one's moderately subtle, but potentially fatal because
	 * although it may well compile, thus not providing a reliable
	 * counter-example to your assertion, it can misbehave badly.
	 */

	unsigned short this = 42;
	int that = -42;
	int those = this * that;
	/* Another "It compiles" example, where "It compiles" is of
	 * little comfort.  Modern C gives -1764 as the result, while
	 * some old C's gave 4294965532 or 63772.  Again, a case where
	 * "It compiles" simply isn't good enough: "It compiles," but
	 * to something not intended by the author.
	 */

     Java's a lot cleaner than C in this respect (given its shorter
history, it ought to be), but still not quite perfect.  Consider a
pre-1.4 source using `assert' as an identifier, or a pre-1.2 source
with a method named `strictfp'.  Change is the only constant.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

#30337

On 11/10/2014 8:11 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> [...]
>      #include <malloc.h>  /* <stdarg.h> nowadays, sort of */

     Um, er,

	#include <malloc.h>  /* <stdlib.h> nowadays, sort of */

... sort of.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

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

#30338

In article <54614184$0$2838$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
Kees Theunissen  <theuniss@rijnh.nl> wrote:
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in
>> the past, including those using the original K&R syntax.
>>
>> Same goes for Java compilers.
>>
>> IIRC the same applies to Fortran compilers.
>
>The biggest problem with ancient C or Fortran code is probably not the
>compiling step but linking against recent -not backwards compatible-
>libraries. A lot of old code will not build on modern systems without
>modification.

You can usually fix that with some switches. All the c code I wrote
in the 1980s compile, link and rund Just Fine on modern Linux, BSD and
even QNX/Posix systems. 

Even the Fortran code I entered for the 1130 on punched cards in
the 1970s will run with some slight preambles in the code.

-- mrr

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web