Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework. .Net and mono are both open source and run on linux already so porting them to the android framework would be easy.
On Nov 12, 7:13 pm, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a > little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono > and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and > over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework.
I think Google made a decision to use a well-established platform for the application layer where numerous existing apps would already be able to quickly gravitate to. .NET or Java ... it's all better than using C++ like many other platforms and I expect in no time someone will create an App Builder that requires less nuts-and-bolts programming knowledge. Also, for most C# developers the switch the Java is an easy one.
Why should Google port .NET when with little time and effort you can use proven Linux technology, open source APIs and development tools? Also, keep in mind this is an OS/API set that should port well to numerous devices in little time so their future momentum is unlimited. Porting the .NET Micro Framework is handled by Microsoft under license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework). Given this, I doubt that Google could ensure the ability to keep the same momentum as a Linux-based solution with that dependency even with cost not being an issue.
That being said, you could always start the Mono Micro Framework project ;)
On Nov 13, 8:13 am, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a > little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono > and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and > over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework. .Net > and mono are both open source and run on linux already so porting them > to the android framework would be easy.
> Regards, > Eric Ramseur > .NET Software Architect
There is no need to port. Mono runs .net,java, and 30 other languages. All that needs to be done is get mono working on the linux kernal google released. Ill try myself and report back.
On Nov 12, 7:34 pm, Keith Adler <ke...@keithadler.info> wrote:
> I think Google made a decision to use a well-established platform for > the application layer where numerous existing apps would already be > able to quickly gravitate to. .NET or Java ... it's all better than > using C++ like many other platforms and I expect in no time someone > will create an App Builder that requires less nuts-and-bolts > programming knowledge. Also, for most C# developers the switch the > Java is an easy one.
> Why should Google port .NET when with little time and effort you can > use proven Linux technology, open source APIs and development tools? > Also, keep in mind this is an OS/API set that should port well to > numerous devices in little time so their future momentum is > unlimited. Porting the .NET Micro Framework is handled by Microsoft > under license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework). > Given this, I doubt that Google could ensure the ability to keep the > same momentum as a Linux-based solution with that dependency even with > cost not being an issue.
> That being said, you could always start the Mono Micro Framework > project ;)
> On Nov 13, 8:13 am, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a > > little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono > > and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and > > over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework. .Net > > and mono are both open source and run on linux already so porting them > > to the android framework would be easy.
> > Regards, > > Eric Ramseur > > .NET Software Architect- Hide quoted text -
Sorry if you guys misunderstood me. I dont think google went wrong in choosing java or do I think they should have chose .net over java. I simply think that they should have offered other frameworks BESIDES java as option. Also C# is a lot easier to use ( ive used java for 5 years) then java and J# is on the .NET and mono frameworks. Seeing how google is an open company, I thought there would be more choice then just a java api to start with. Same goes for the open social. Why are their just javascript and rest calls? What about soap web services? That would make more choice.
In response to the micro framework: I dont think there would be a need seeing how if mono can run on the linux kernal then you can run the entire framework on any mobile device.
On Nov 12, 7:44 pm, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no need to port. Mono runs .net,java, and 30 other > languages. All that needs to be done is get mono working on the linux > kernal google released. Ill try myself and report back.
> On Nov 12, 7:34 pm, Keith Adler <ke...@keithadler.info> wrote:
> > I think Google made a decision to use a well-established platform for > > the application layer where numerous existing apps would already be > > able to quickly gravitate to. .NET or Java ... it's all better than > > using C++ like many other platforms and I expect in no time someone > > will create an App Builder that requires less nuts-and-bolts > > programming knowledge. Also, for most C# developers the switch the > > Java is an easy one.
> > Why should Google port .NET when with little time and effort you can > > use proven Linux technology, open source APIs and development tools? > > Also, keep in mind this is an OS/API set that should port well to > > numerous devices in little time so their future momentum is > > unlimited. Porting the .NET Micro Framework is handled by Microsoft > > under license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework). > > Given this, I doubt that Google could ensure the ability to keep the > > same momentum as a Linux-based solution with that dependency even with > > cost not being an issue.
> > That being said, you could always start the Mono Micro Framework > > project ;)
> > On Nov 13, 8:13 am, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a > > > little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono > > > and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and > > > over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework. .Net > > > and mono are both open source and run on linux already so porting them > > > to the android framework would be easy.
> > > Regards, > > > Eric Ramseur > > > .NET Software Architect- Hide quoted text -
iPhone is concentrating in an Objective-C API, it makes sense for Google to concentrate on a single API, at least initially. I don't understand what you mean by supporting "different frameworks". You mean the CLR and the JVM at the sametime? That seems like a wasted effort. If you are saying they should have used the CLR instead of the JVM, then that's another argument (one I would disagree with too).
On Nov 12, 7:49 pm, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry if you guys misunderstood me. I dont think google went wrong in > choosing java or do I think they should have chose .net over java. I > simply think that they should have offered other frameworks BESIDES > java as option. Also C# is a lot easier to use ( ive used java for 5 > years) then java and J# is on the .NET and mono frameworks. Seeing > how google is an open company, I thought there would be more choice > then just a java api to start with. Same goes for the open social. > Why are their just javascript and rest calls? What about soap web > services? That would make more choice.
> In response to the micro framework: I dont think there would be a > need seeing how if mono can run on the linux kernal then you can run > the entire framework on any mobile device.
> On Nov 12, 7:44 pm, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > There is no need to port. Mono runs .net,java, and 30 other > > languages. All that needs to be done is get mono working on the linux > > kernal google released. Ill try myself and report back.
> > On Nov 12, 7:34 pm, Keith Adler <ke...@keithadler.info> wrote:
> > > I think Google made a decision to use a well-established platform for > > > the application layer where numerous existing apps would already be > > > able to quickly gravitate to. .NET or Java ... it's all better than > > > using C++ like many other platforms and I expect in no time someone > > > will create an App Builder that requires less nuts-and-bolts > > > programming knowledge. Also, for most C# developers the switch the > > > Java is an easy one.
> > > Why should Google port .NET when with little time and effort you can > > > use proven Linux technology, open source APIs and development tools? > > > Also, keep in mind this is an OS/API set that should port well to > > > numerous devices in little time so their future momentum is > > > unlimited. Porting the .NET Micro Framework is handled by Microsoft > > > under license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework). > > > Given this, I doubt that Google could ensure the ability to keep the > > > same momentum as a Linux-based solution with that dependency even with > > > cost not being an issue.
> > > That being said, you could always start the Mono Micro Framework > > > project ;)
> > > On Nov 13, 8:13 am, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > Dont you think just having Java running on some special framework is a > > > > little bit limiting? Why not also allowing other frameworks like mono > > > > and .NET? This would open the framework up to framework support and > > > > over 30 languages instead of just java and be a true framework. .Net > > > > and mono are both open source and run on linux already so porting them > > > > to the android framework would be easy.
You should stop using the phrase "instead of" and use choice. All Im asking is for choice. You also need to realize that making this a reality is not too complicated and Im not demanding anything. Im just seeing if anyone else would like to see .NET on top of the Android.
Let me make it really easy : Android OS = Linux Mono runs .NET Mono runs on Linux .NET runs on Android
Im just waiting to see if and when someone shows a screen shot of this. There is no waste of effort that needs to take place. In fact mono could run out of the box on the kernal.
Also microsoft created the Compact framework years ago that supports many devices so google is a little behind. However, Google presents more opportunity by making a powerful platform completly open source. There would be no need to run the compact framework on Android ( et this is possible) since you can run the whole superset on top.
J# is being supported upto 2015. M$ just doesnt want to maintain it in Visual Studio as they have chosen C# / VB.NET as a standard for now and future versions. However J# is fully supported in VS 2005 and 2008 beta for .NET 2.0 and 3.0 frameworks.
"Retirement of J# language and Java Language Conversion Assistant from future versions of Visual Studio
Since customers have told us that the existing J# feature set largely meets their needs and usage of J# is declining, Microsoft is retiring the Visual J# product and Java Language Conversion Assistant tool to better allocate resources for other customer requirements. The J# language and JLCA tool will not be available in future versions of Visual Studio. To preserve existing customer investments in J#, Microsoft will continue to support the J# and JLCA technology that shipped with Visual Studio 2005 through to 2015 as per our product life-cycle strategy. For more information, see Expanded Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy for Business & Development Products."
IMO, As long as there is even the slight chance of legal problems, i very much doubt Google will provide any support for either mono, or Microsoft .Net
On Nov 12, 2007 8:59 PM, Out of the Head of Ramseur <rams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should stop using the phrase "instead of" and use choice. All Im > asking is for choice. You also need to realize that making this a > reality is not too complicated and Im not demanding anything. Im just > seeing if anyone else would like to see .NET on top of the Android.
> Let me make it really easy : Android OS = Linux > Mono runs .NET > Mono runs on Linux > .NET runs on Android
> Im just waiting to see if and when someone shows a screen shot of > this. There is no waste of effort that needs to take place. In fact > mono could run out of the box on the kernal.
> Also microsoft created the Compact framework years ago that supports > many devices so google is a little behind. However, Google presents > more opportunity by making a powerful platform completly open source. > There would be no need to run the compact framework on Android ( et > this is possible) since you can run the whole superset on top.
