[brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
- From: "John J. Boyer" <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:33:56 -0500
John,
I was wondering where you had disappeared to this time.
Many Java JVMs have just-in-time colmpiling, which translates byte code
to machikne language. This considerably increases speed. C compilers
have automatic optimization which can be turned on and off. When I test
liblouis in both conditions there is a considerabloe difference in
speed. A good JVM will run a program so quickly that it appears almost
instantaneous, unless the progrram does a really large amount of data
manipulation. In that case, it would be slow in any language.
With Java you get the advantages of compile-once run anywhere.
Well, I think this has been a good discussion, especially for making us
re-examine our assumptions.
John B.
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:01:03PM -0700, 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 <http://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
Other related posts:
