[brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
- From: "Sina Bahram" <sbahram@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 01:54:38 -0400
Sure, just google for skyfire and iPhone
Here's one of the thousands of articles:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Skyfire-iPhone-iPad-App-Is-Sold-Out-797359/
Take care,
Sina
________________________________
From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Jurgensen
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:23 AM
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
Hi,
Can you point me to something stated this, as I believe that the 4.2 SDK bans
this.
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 10:06 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
Actually, please see recent developments on this. They finally relented
which is why flash is now possible on the
iPhone/iPad.
The translation is done off-device into html5 then sent back.
Take care,
Sina
________________________________
From: brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Jurgensen
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:09 AM
To: brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [brailleblaster] Re: Why Java
Hi John,
Thank you for your quick response.
I would like to work on the online version if it does come into reality.
Also, Apple specifically bans the use of Java or any other code, even
if it is compiled into machine language, or did you
mean that
so that we can compile stand-alone binaries that are in machine code?
Regards,
Alex,
On 2010-11-04, at 9:43 PM, John J. Boyer wrote:
Alex,
I like the idea of an online version of Brailleblaster, but it willhave
to wait until the standalone version is finished. Doing both at once
would just be too much. You can already try an online version (rather
primitive) of liblouis and liblouisxml at http://www.abilitiessoft.com
We can build flexibility innto BrailleBlaster from the beginning, so it
can run on say, the iPad if that seems like a good idea down the road.
I
don't see it running on the iPhone, though of course a small app using
liblouis and liblouisutdml could be developed for that device.
As a matter of fact, Java can be compiled into machine code by programs
like gcj for Linux.
Thanks for the information on Eclipse on the Mac. It looks like the SWT
version for the Mac needs some work.
John B.
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:32:51PM -0700, Alex Jurgensen wrote:
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
--
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/>
Alex Jurgensen,
VoiceOver Trainer,
ASquared21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit us on the web at: www.vipbc.org <http://www.vipbc.org/>
Other related posts:
