Why the grain of salt? For a while now Novell has been running a
closed beta test program for .NET development on the iPhone:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Aug-03.html
Anyway, the primary reason why you don't see Java on the iPhone is
that you are simply not allowed by Apple to run a JIT.
Cross compiling your language into Objective C (which is what all of
these iPhone solutions do, even the Java one (yes, there is one)) is
light years away from creating a browser plugin for Mobile Safari.
On Sep 14, 2009, at 4:17 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
Why the grain of salt? For a while
Ehh... Mobile Safari? Anyway it is a declared goal of the Mono guys to
eventually offer Silverligt on the iPhone. Do you plan on offering
JavaFX there?
/Casper
On 14 Sep., 14:16, Joshua Marinacci jos...@marinacci.org wrote:
Cross compiling your language into Objective C (which is what all of
Silverlight CANNOT work. Neither can flash. Or javaFX. OR anything
else. The reason is simple: Mobile Safari has no plugin interface
whatsoever. Even if there was some sort of ObjectiveC-based RIA, it
won't work on mobile safari.
So, whatever is going to happen, is going to have to happen via
On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
Oh ok. Well I donno how much is involved from this to actually having
Silverlight work, but it appears to be a good first step and they
generally move at an immense speed over there. It's also interesting
to see that the Mono bridge samples
On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote:
Joshua Marinacci wrote:
You said the first browser RIA plugin to be supported on the
iPhone.
I'm saying that what they are doing won't make it happen.
Yes, it's possible to build a pure Java app that you can install on
non-hacked
Joshua Marinacci wrote:
You said the first browser RIA plugin to be supported on the iPhone.
I'm saying that what they are doing won't make it happen.
Yes, it's possible to build a pure Java app that you can install on
non-hacked iPhones. Like Mono it involves generating an ugly blob of
Oh ok. Well I donno how much is involved from this to actually having
Silverlight work, but it appears to be a good first step and they
generally move at an immense speed over there. It's also interesting
to see that the Mono bridge samples take about half the code size as
their Obj-C
Massimo wrote:
C# was designed to always be compiled, Java was not.
Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are junking up
this discussion group with nonsense.
Maybe you should limit your posting to technologies that you've
actually tried using.
I find rather annoying
You said the first browser RIA plugin to be supported on the iPhone.
I'm saying that what they are doing won't make it happen.
Yes, it's possible to build a pure Java app that you can install on
non-hacked iPhones. Like Mono it involves generating an ugly blob of
Objective C code which is
Both Java and C# (as well as many other JVM CLR based languages) can
be compiled directly to machine code . There have been attempts to do
so since the early days of Java.
However, there is a *reason* why these approaches are rarely used in
production anymore. The assumed speed gains
It says right on their site that it requires a Mac and the Apple
iPhone SDK (which is Mac only)
Yes, that's because they will run into trouble with Apple otherwise.
It's my understanding that when you compile using MonoTouch, it will
output a binary ready to be run on the iPhone/iPod Touch
something that's there in order to speed up emulation
That should've said something that's there in order to speed up
interpretation.
Luckily you don't have take my word for it, I've digged this piece up
for you by Bill Venners, Bruce Eckel and Anders Hejlsberg:
I just read through the link you sent. Interesting stuff.
Yes, it's true that the CLR (which is what they are talking about, not
C# the language, when referring to JIT stuff) was designed to be only
JITed not interpreted; whereas Java was originally designed for more
constrained devices
I find rather annoying this kind of reply. :-) Especially people like
me, who hasn't got a deep knowledge of C#, would like to have some
proofing points: you're wrong BECAUSE
ok...
I said that C# was designed to always be compiled, Java was not.
This is simply wrong BECAUSE Java is
Massimo wrote:
I find rather annoying this kind of reply. :-) Especially people
like me, who hasn't got a deep knowledge of C#, would like to have
some proofing points: you're wrong BECAUSE
ok...
I said that C# was designed to always be compiled, Java was not.
This is simply
Another difference is that .NET was never intended to fully replace
native/non-managed code, but rather to inter-operate easily with it.
You often call into non-managed code and you can have fun with
pointers if you so choose (which probably explains why Mono has
success on Linux where
Well, it seems you didn't understand the point. The discussion is about
_directly_ compiling Java into native code,
I thought that this discussion was about C#/Java iPhone development,
specifically by way of Objective-C cross compilers...
I actually thought, Hmm... maybe he is referring to
18 matches
Mail list logo
