[brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
- From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:12:10 -0400
Coco is not c, it's coco. Different languages/syntax.
Almost all phones these days, in the class of device we've been discussing,
have 512mb of ram. I'm not seeing how the 32mb jvm
instance is problematic.
Also, memory usage is not directly proportional to battery life as that memory
needs to be receiving constant voltage anyways, if I
remember how ram works correctly. On the other hand, the power draw from the
processor is a huge deal. We've already discussed ways
in which, in the long run, the processor is doing an equal amount, if not less,
with bytecode runtime optimized languages such as
java.
Take care,
Sina
________________________________
From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Jurgensen
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:06 AM
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
Hi,
I am more concerned with teh memory requirements of these devices.
And in the case of the iPad, if all of the core code is done in C, then you
just need to do the UI in Cocoatouch, which is what you
would need to do anyways.
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 9:41 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
Let's take iOS, Android, and Windows Mobile 7 into consideration then.
iOS pretty much requires coco for almost every single API hook; which
means that c won't do you any good, only objective c
which
uses Apple bindings.
Android is written in java; thus, java's no problem on there.
Windows Mobiel 7 prefers .net, namely SilverLight, for all UI related
hooks and functionality; thus, c will do you no good
on there;
however, I've heard nothing about java being banned from WM7, which
actually means there's potential.
Now, if we examine the tablet market, the iPad is the only iOS device.
Ok, fine, no java there, at least not easily, but no
straight
up c either.
On the other hand there are tens upon tens of android tablets coming
out, all of which will have built-in jvm's ready to go.
In the windows space, tablets run windows XP or Windows 7, tablet
edition, not windows mobile 7, which means java is no
problem on
there either.
Just adding up the pros and cons, in terms of java availability versus
not, I'm getting way more pros in the java column.
Take care,
Sina
________________________________
From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Jurgensen
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:48 PM
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
Hi,
Take for instance the non-Intell Linx machines and the iPad.
See my last message about memory requirements, as these have a greater
impact on battery performance of smaller systems.
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 6:10 PM, qubit wrote:
What devices? smart phones? I think whatever device that supports a
screen reader that is capable of handling the
interface of brailleblaster (which I'll call bb) should be supported.
--le
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Jurgensen <mailto:asquared21@xxxxxxxxx>
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 6:46 PM
Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
Hi,
Thank you for the quick response.
Don't these libraries have C equivalents? The C equivalents may not be
as advanced as their Java counterparts, but I
am sure that this is a better long-term goal.
This still does not address the issues of devices that do not support
Java.
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 3:45 PM, 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 <mailto:asquared21@xxxxxxxxx>
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 <http://www.vipbc.org/>
Alex Jurgensen,
VoiceOver Trainer,
ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org <http://www.vipbc.org/>
Alex Jurgensen,
VoiceOver Trainer,
ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org <http://www.vipbc.org/>
Alex Jurgensen,
VoiceOver Trainer,
ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org <http://www.vipbc.org/>
Other related posts:
