On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:47:56 +0100 Paulo Pinto <pj...@progtools.org> wrote:
> On 30.03.2013 05:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:45:33 +0100 > > Paulo Pinto <pj...@progtools.org> wrote: > > > >> On 28.03.2013 07:13, js.mdnq wrote: > >>> I would like to get into writing apps for android and would like > >>> to choose D for this if it is mature enough. > >>> > >>> What is the D progress on the android? > >>> > >>> I see that at least others are interested but not finding a ton of > >>> information: > >>> > >>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/20120204203109.26c9a80b@jpf-laptop?page=1 > >> > >> Please note that native development in Android has a second class > >> status. > >> > >> Support is only available as a means to bring "legacy" C and C++ > >> code to the platform. > >> > >> The few Android APIs available to languages outside the Dalvik > >> world are actually wrappers around JNI calls. > >> > > > > That's actually something that's been rolling around in my head for > > months, and now that it's brought up again, I have to just go ahead > > and say it: > > > > What...the *FUCK* is Google thinking??? > > > > How is it *possible* that the one company in the word that's been > > known, more than any other, for recruiting as many of the supposedly > > best and brightest developers in the world as they possibly can, > > portrayed by approximately...everyone in the world...as being > > practically a developer's utopia, with nary a pointy-hair in sight, > > and the streets paved with latte, can be so incredibly dumb as to > > decide "Hey, let's make our system API be *JVM-only* (ok, > > "JVM-knockoff", whatever, like it even matters) and marginalize > > native in general, and shit all over the idea of being anything > > more than halfway Posix"?? Even *Apple* isn't that goddamn stupid, > > for crap's sakes, and *Apple* was never a developer's company, it > > was run by a dicatoring *salesman*! A drugged-out fucking > > *salesman* for fuck's sakes, and even *they* didn't botch things up > > *that* badly! > > > > Not only that, but this is the same - apparently schizophrenic - > > company that's been trying to push the *Google* **NATIVE** > > **CLIENT**, ie NaCl!! > > > > [Just insert a mental image right here of Lewis Black's trademark > > freak-out saying "What...the...FUUUCK?!?'] > > > > Sheesh. > > > > Sorry, had to get it outta my system... > > > > Personally my issue is another one. > > I don't mind that they use Java (the language), but I think that > instead of having the effort of implementing Dalvik, they could > have implemented a native code compiler instead. > > This way the platform would be fully native. > > This is Microsoft current approach, regardless of C++ or .NET, since > Windows Phone 8, everything is compiled to native code. > Exactly. It just makes no sense how they see such little point in native. They've created a *real* machine that exists almost entirely to run a *virtual* machine. WTF is the point of that, if not to deliberately waste both hardware and developer resources? And on a portable, too - one of the top places where efficiency is particularly important. > As for POSIX compatibility, it is oversold. You only have APIs for > command line applications and daemons, and like any standard, it has > undefined behaviors, with each vendor having a different idea what > POSIX means. > > Nowadays they could even support Go in the platform, but the Android > group does not seem to care that much (issue was created by me). > > http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=39482 > I find this part particularly hilarious: "the Go compilers only generate static executables right now. Which means: ... - These programs *cannot* run in a Dalvik VM." You've got the Go team which has historically been staunchly opposed to dynamic linking, and the Android team ten miles in the opposite direction. Classic corporate "left-hand vs right-hand" discrepancy. Makes them sound like Sony or MS.