On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:41, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > You probably don't realize, but you've asked a $100,000 question (not > a million, indeed, but just a magnitudo below). :-)
No, I didn't - I was just thinking to be too stupid to work it out... (It's always my first assumption that it is my fault. ;-) ) > While I understand > the reasons (which are not only technical, BTW) to have a different > VM, I think it's really unforgivable the choice of Google of > fragmenting de facto Java with a stripped down version of the runtime. If there is fragmentation done then it must be made clear otherwise confusion is created and the confused developer will turn away. There are already enough uncertainties and "sudden surprises" in software development so I think most developers are trying to cut down the number of possible points of failure. > Some things are obviously missing (e.g. Swing and AWT UI classes), > some aren't so obvious (BufferedImage is AWT, but it's a model class > and could frankly stay). OK, I was not expecting Swing to work, but BufferedImage I also might have expected to work. > The way I'm following with Android to try/fix needed libraries that > couldn't run out-of-the-box is based on the static manipulation of > bytecode, [...] Puuhhh - I think I cannot either imagine how hard this is - I guess it feels like doing assemply language... > It's really a boring approach, since it's trial and error and there's > always the risk that you run into a showstopper problem. I can imagine... -- Martin Wildam http://www.google.com/profiles/mwildam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
