[brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
- From: Alex Jurgensen <asquared21@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:32:51 -0700
Hi John,
About the Mac support, I have found that Eclipse, which is itself written in
SWT is kind of sketchy in its support of VoiceOver, the Mac screen reader and
has a tendancy to lock up when it is used with VoiceOver, even on a machine
with relatively high specifications.
I also disagree with embeded devices for embossing.
Also, since the future of application development and deployment may be the
Apple and Microsoft App Stores, then we should look at what kinds of apps are
not being allowed in.
I would also be interested in making on an online version of Braille Blaster as
a portable version. What do you all think about that?
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 9:01 PM, John Gardner wrote:
> Hello Alex, well you have certainly stirred up a lot of questions and
> comments. That’s good, and I have had private conversations with several
> listers to develop a consensus on whether we should seriously consider
> changing course as you suggest. The consensus is “no”.
>
> Quick summary is that isn’t necessarily true that C will be faster, since it
> really depends on how well it is optimized. Java has many automatic
> optimizations and can often run lots faster than C. It strikes many people
> that it really doesn’t make sense to time-optimize this program, because it
> really runs on (very slow) human time anyhow. Java is considerably faster to
> write and debug code, so the price for using C would be longer development
> time. Strike 1.
>
> BrailleBlaster has always been intended to be a desktop application. To be
> useful, it needs to have drivers for embossers, and these are available for
> Windows, some for Macs, and some for Linux. It is not very likely that any
> will be written for an iPhone, iPad, or any other embedded device, so it
> makes no sense to write a Braille translator for those devices either.
> Strike 2.
>
> You say that Microsoft and Apple no longer support Java. To my knowledge,
> Microsoft has never supported Java per se, but Java has always worked on
> Windows. Apple’s Java support has been, well peculiar at best, so many Java
> lovers seem pretty happy that Apple has abandoned that support. There are
> plenty of Java run-time aps that work on the Mac, so there seems to be no
> problem using Java. Just have to install a JRT whether it’s Windows or Mac.
> Strike 3.
>
> Thanks for making us examine our assumptions however. I appreciate your
> thoughts. One should always be looking for something better. C is better
> for lots of things, but as far as several of us can tell, not for
> BrailleBlaster.
>
> John Gardner
>
>
>
>
> From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Jurgensen
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 7:46 PM
> To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
>
> Hi John,
>
> C programs run nativvely on all major OS's.
>
> WX-Widgets is like SWT for C and for sure works on the Mac with the Mac's
> screen reader.
>
> The compilers are not included on the Mac and as far as I know on Windows,
> but those need to be run only once to compile the code.
>
> What you walk away with by using C is faster exicution, and more memory
> efficient code, which is important to screen reader users running on low
> specification machines.
>
> Just my $0.02 cents worth.
>
> Regards,
> Alex,
>
>
> On 2010-11-04, at 5:57 PM, John J. Boyer wrote:
>
>
> BrailleBlaster is intended as a desktop application. There is no reason
> why it couldn't be used on a tablet. It would not be suitable for small
> devices, such as phones, because these could not accommmodate the GUI
> which is part of its design and a large part of its appeal. How would
> you fit usable braille and print windows on a small screen?
>
> The core libraries of BrailleBlaster are already in C. liblouis and
> liblouisutdml will be the braille engine of BrailleBlaster and they can
> be used without it via the file2brl command-line interface. They are the
> engine; BrailleBlaster is the rest of the car.
>
> Java was picked because of SWT, which has native C libraries that
> support the UI requirements of different platforms. wxwidgets is
> problematical. I have heard that it really works only for Windows. Java
> provides wuicker software development and indeed a great number of
> libraries that do things like display MathML.
> Microsoft doesn['t provide C at the installation of its operating
> systems. With Apple, you have to install the Developer tools to get C. I
> think both decided that maintaining their own Java runtimes just wasn't
> worth it, because there are so many third-party JREs already available.
>
> I may be wrong on some of this, but I'm hoping we will see some messages
> from More Java experts and from other decision-makers.
>
> Yuemei said she is experienced mostly in C and Visual Basic. She did
> mention Swing, but not that she had used it a lot. I think straight SWT
> is the way to go.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 05:45:02PM -0500, qubit wrote:
>
> Perhaps because there are java libraries available that are tempting to use
> as a base? As for Apple and Microsoft, the java runtime is not being
> supported by them any longer, but third parties may still develop such
> support to be distributed with java programs.
> Any other things I have missed?
> --le
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alex Jurgensen
> To: Brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:25 PM
> Subject: [brailleblaster] Why Java
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> I mention this now, at the relative beginning of the project, so as to avoid
> unnecessary work.
>
>
> Why are we using Java and not writing most of the code in C, with a true,
> native UI on top, such as WX-Widgets for C. Because the code would not need
> to be exicuted in a virtual machine, we would avoid many of the slowdowns
> associated with Java.
>
>
> We must also think about embeded devices, where the overhead of Java is
> either too much for hte battery to tolleratte acceptably or there is no Java
> Virtual Machine available.
>
>
> Furthermore, both Microsoft and Apple have dropped support for Java within
> their Operating Systems, it doesn't seem to make sense to continue coding in
> Java because we may one day soon need to rewrite all of our code to aadapt to
> a whole new class of machines that don't have Java Available.
>
>
> I feel that if we write the core of our code into C libraries, we should be
> able to bring about new UI's, such as a Cocoatouch UI for IOS devices, OR an
> QT UI for Nokea and Intel's new project.
>
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex,
>
>
>
>
> Alex Jurgensen,
> VoiceOver Trainer,
> ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org
>
>
> --
> John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
> Abilitiessoft, Inc.
> http://www.abilitiessoft.com
> Madison, Wisconsin USA
> Developing software for people with disabilities
>
>
>
> Alex Jurgensen,
> VoiceOver Trainer,
> ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org
>
Alex Jurgensen,
VoiceOver Trainer,
ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org
Other related posts:
