rh wrote: > George Baker wrote: > > In order to make a calendar app you should need to even have to worry > > about the source for the Android OS. What you will need is the > > Android SDK which you can get at > > http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html, You'll want to look > > towards the bottom of the page under download for other platforms - > > SDK Tools only. You will also need a copy of JAVA 1.6. > > Yes I did get these already. But I still need to learn how to remove > apps that I don't need and in my dabbling I wasn't able to remove >
adb uninstall <package> > them. But I may need to spend more time on this part of the puzzle. > > I think I've read this one but not sure, there's [sic] so many docs it's > hard > to know. But read below. > The developer.android.com docs are the fundamental ones and not to be ignored. "There's too much documentation" is not a legitimate complaint. > also some tutorials on the site. They are for the Eclipse IDE > > however. While it is possible to build an Android app without an IDE > And others, such as command line. The docs are not limited to Eclipse. > > it will be very very difficult to do. This is especially true for > You exaggerate. It's not difficult really. > > the layouts of your calendar app and if you are new to Android > > development. In short not using an IDE will dramatically lengthen > > the amount of time development takes because of debugging, layout, > > etc... That being said it can be done. However, I wouldn't > > recommend it. I never use the layout features of Eclipse. It's easier just to work with the XML. > It turns out that I will do something with a web app. The main reason > is that my x86 is 32-bit and anything past froyo has to be 64-bit. Other > That doesn't matter. Java is word-size independent. > reasons are due to the barrier to entry in the form of the terrbile > complexity of the dev. env. and sheer size. Also cross-compiling > in general is a pain. > What cross-compiling? And the "dev. env." is not so very complex - far less than many platforms. > > Finally, as for building it for your phone only the process is > > virtually identical if you build it for your device only or many. > > About the only difference is you don't have to worry about testing it > > on other devices and won't have to upload to the Playstore. > > Good points but the problem I see is that the environment is enormous > just to develop for a single device. But it's moot unless I buy a 64-bit > system. > I still don't understand this. Maybe it's the fact that any 32-bit system will be woefully underpowered by today's standards, but the bit width /per se/ is not relevant. Java bytecode is Java bytecode is Java bytecode. Tell us specifically what goes wrong on your woefully underpowered dev box. -- Lew -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
