I guess ARM and partners should make a better work in the tooling space; developers (at least when using C or other languages but not handcoded Assembly) should not have more work than choosing a few compiler options in the IDE or makefile. Wintel's power always owed a lot on superior tooling... by the way, if I ever write my own History Of Java, I'll assign at least 50% of its success to the fact that Java allowed better tools to be written.
A+ Osvaldo On Friday, September 16, 2011 3:24:41 PM UTC-4, Casper Bang wrote: > > > I'm puzzled too. The latest wave of mobile appliances is technologically > > successful and is able to run on a "clean" architecture (ARM), without > > all the legacy encumbered of x86. > > Just to be clear, developing for ARM isn't quite that rosy. For every ARM > CPU I've ever played with (Android phone, Synology NAS, iGala picture frame > etc.) it's quite a tricky process to setup the toolchain and makefiles. > Remember the SoC's use a mishmash of instruction sets and extensions, this > is both the beauty and the complexity of the architecture. ARM > sells/licences designs, Intel sells actual silicon... the latter carries > more legacy aspects, but it is still more homogeneous. Btw. Linus Torwalds > lately expressed his concerns regarding developing for ARM: > http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/175829/arm-and-linux-major-construction-ahead > > > I'm wondering whether Intel is really interested in mobile and >> > tablets, or whether they want, just in case, to be able to migrate >> > "real" desktops to Android. >> > > I think it's simply a matter of them spreading their portfolio, mobile > computing is after all destined to take over quite a bit of the typical > desktop space. And with so much cash in the bank, why not? It was, after > all, Intel's small research team in Israel that came up with the Core > (Pentium-M micro-architecture) that ended up saving Intel from loosing to > AMD, back when Oregon engineers went pipeline crazy with the NetBurst > (Pentium 4) micro-architecture. In Intel's defense, they also tried with > Itanium but, at least in the past decade, there was little incentive to > leave the proven and backwards-compatible x86 platform. Times have changed > though. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/I1_KyTLFKkIJ. 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.
