«

On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<irtu02$bso$>, BGB wrote:
>
>> ... there is always J2ME ...
>
> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out earlier.
>

well, it can be used as a starting point, as generally people implement
the core VM and libraries, and anything after this is presumably
whatever they want to put in there...

so, it is basically like J2SE but without the requirement to implement
piles of classes which may / may not be applicable to the target.


but, if one just uses J2ME by itself, or is trying to write portable
apps targeting it, it is not so nice, as it doesn't ensure all the usual
standard features...

much like if one were trying to target a system which only had the C89
standard library and maybe a few OS-specific libraries and nothing else...


>> potential developer: "but what about AWT and Swing and these other APIs
>> I might want to use?"
>> response: "well, for these things you use our vastly improved
>> foo.gui.manager (it has Pointy/Clicky TM) and other custom APIs...".
>>
>> at this point it would likely start to look a bit like someone trying
>> simply to use the Java trademark as a selling point.
>
> Which Google has been careful to avoid.


yep, probably fair enough...

On Sat, 28 May 2011 23:17:31 -0700, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>I do not know anything about Andriod version of Java. But if one
>writes an Andriod application, can one take the Java source code
>and compile it with Java (the standard Java) and run it on say
>window 7 or linux or the mac?

The big problem is the UI is quite different. Android does not
support anything that looks like AWT or Swing.
I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard
java so you can run Android apps there. Going the other way would be
difficult since there is only 1 GB of RAM to play with.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
How long did it take after the car was invented before owners understood
cars would not work unless you regularly changed the oil and the tires?
We have gone 33 years and still it is rare to uncover a user who
understands computers don't work without regular backups.

In message <>, Roedy Green wrote:

> The big problem is the UI is quite different.

There being reasons for that.

> I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard
> java so you can run Android apps there.

And what would that achieve? What platform would ship with this “standard
Java”?

In message <irv0op$kde$>, BGB wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<irtu02$bso$>, BGB wrote:
>>
>>> ... there is always J2ME ...
>>
>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out earlier.
>
> well, it can be used as a starting point ...

I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a “starting
point”.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> The big problem is the UI is quite different.

> There being reasons for that.

What are they, Lawrence? Do you know?

>> I would imagine somebody eventually ports the Android UI to standard
>> java [sic] so you can run Android apps there.

> And what would that achieve? What platform would ship with this “standard
> Java”?

Any platform that ships with standard Java. I think Linux would be a likely
candidate, as it's what Darvik runs on already.

Google already has put out such a port. I've been running Darvik or something
much like it to which the Android libraries have already been ported, by
Google or someone with Google's cooperation, on my desktop Ubuntu box for some
time now. I downloaded it from Google.

Does that answer your question - - - - - Lawrence?

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../c/cf/Friz.jpg

In message <irv04d$jga$>, BGB wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 5:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<irtsqa$9ae$>, BGB wrote:
>>
>>> ... register-based VMs are not necessarily non-portable, just the
>>> performance argument is a bit weak, especially on x86 ...
>>
>> Which, interestingly, is not very popular for ultramobile devices.
>>
> now, maybe for RISC style targets things are faster ...

The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the
power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM.

>>> although they still use the Java language, which could itself be a
>>> factor in a legal sense ...
>>
>> How come? Is the licence for the Sunacle JDK (which is what I use for
>> compiling programs) violated in any way?
>
> apparently, Sun/Oracle is fairly fussy about who uses their trademark
> and when, and basically they went and sued Google, IIRC (?), for using
> their trademark in an unliscensed and partial implementation ...

I don’t recall any trademarks being at issue in that suit.

> ... and for infringing on their patents.

Which is a separate issue.

On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<irv0op$kde$>, BGB wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message<irtu02$bso$>, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... there is always J2ME ...
>>>
>>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out earlier.
>>
>> well, it can be used as a starting point ...
>
> I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a “starting
> point”.
>

no, not using code, but using its spec, and writing something according
to the spec...


for example, one can write their own version of the JVM, with their own
class libraries, and their own version of the compiler, ...

whether or not this is more or less effort than designing a language and
VM clean is a matter of debate though, as there are merits and drawbacks
either way.

On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the
> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM.
>

Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that?

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/89236.html

"Santa Clara, Calif.-based company said its "Tri-Gate" technology
turns microchip channels -- traditionally flat -- on their side,
creating a high, slender connector for higher performance
and lower power consumption, which is particularly important
for small mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. "

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...fight_with_ARM

"On Wednesday, Intel announced that it has made a major
leap in advancing chip technology: 3D transistors. The new
technology, expected to make PCs, smartphones and tablets
faster and more power-efficient, is slated to make its first
appearance when Intel moves to 22-nanometer chips next year."

etc//

--Nasser

In message <irvfip$ufl$>, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 10:26 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> The issue is power consumption. Intel has been unable to drive down the
>> power usage of x86 chips to offer serious competition to ARM.
>
> Do you think the new intel 3D chips would do that?

Not a chance. They’ve already tacitly given up on phones for now, but are
still making a big noise about tablets. Though I’ve yet to hear of any
significant design wins.

The only advantage to having x86 on a tablet is the ability to run Windows.
And nobody seems to care about that.

In message <irvak5$lnt$>, BGB wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 9:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<irv0op$kde$>, BGB wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2011 5:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message<irtu02$bso$>, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... there is always J2ME ...
>>>>
>>>> Which is unsuited to modern ultramobile devices, as pointed out
>>>> earlier.
>>>
>>> well, it can be used as a starting point ...
>>
>> I don’t think Oracle’s licence allows you to use its code as a “starting
>> point”.
>>
> no, not using code, but using its spec, and writing something according
> to the spec...

But the J2ME spec is unsuited to ultramobile devices, as pointed out
earlier.