The only situation where I can see this as appropriate is in the case where you're doing something with the system, where your "app" is really doing something with the system instead, and in this case it is off topic for this list (related to app development with the SDK).
kris On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Kristopher Micinski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Yan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, "strongly recommended against" is more realistic, and polite, >> than "universally a sign that the programmer took the cheap, >> unprofessional way out". Its good to see of other ways of handling >> corruption. >> > > Because Dianne works for Google, she has to be a lot more professional > because anything she says will probably subsequently be quoted. > > I'll put it this way: in all of the questions seen here, situations > brought up by people, including all of the examples you have provided > so far, there is *always* a better way, and this has *universally* > been used by people who took a C programming course where they (also > taking the cheap way out, doubly so in the presence of threads) were > taught to do an exit(n) whenever they needed to just quit. They then > saw the method, without fully understanding the Android lifecycle / > system interaction, and transcribed that experience over to their new > apps. > > This behavior goes in the bin with "people treating Android like Linux." > >> There's no doubt what the professional-opinion is in the episode when >> the OFF button is outlawed... > > Of course, typically the off button these days is simply a "sleep" > button.. and to get the real effect you have to pull out the battery > :-)... > > kris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
