5 ms·

Is that something Google wants? I don't see the advantage for them short of adding on C# devs

by m3rc 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago
C# offers more support for memory friendly coding and performance than Java, which could ultimately improve Android's performance. Of course, this would only work if they switch languages, which I don't see the Android team doing willingly without upper management "help".
- snoman 10y ago
  I don't think they have to switch languages. With official support/talent working on Xamarin.Android (which is already great) coming from both MS and Google, that'd be enough to make C# on android a sure thing.
- geodel 10y ago
  Other than some hypothetical legal advantage in Oracle vs Google case. C# in place of Java would be as likely supported by management as MS Exchange/Outlook in place of Gmail
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    That was my point, given the past history to changing language proposals.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Do you have any metrics to prove your baseless assumptions?
  - xorxornop 10y ago
    They said "has support for", not "is". This is a natural consequence of having value types (structs). You can even change the bit packing and other layout properties of structs.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Are you replying to the proper comment? In any case, he stated that an Android C# app would be more performant than an app coded in Java without supplying any metrics to prove his point. >This is a natural consequence of having value types (structs). You can even change the bit packing and other layout properties of structs. And yet the JVM still beats the CLR in performance.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        > And yet the JVM still beats the CLR in performance. On mobile memory-constrained devices? Can you share a benchmark demonstrating that?
        bitmapbrother 10y ago
        The JVM reference inferred non mobile.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        There are lots of J2ME in use, in spite of Android.
        int_19h 10y ago
        Yes, and it has always had horrible perf, especially when it came to memory. Standard techniques to reduce memory pressure included never ever instantiating your classes. So basically everything is a static method, and the only data types you can use are primitives, since Java doesn't have structs (exactly the problem that this thread pointed out at the beginning). So people would instead preallocate global arrays of primitives, and referenced their elements by index, if they needed to pass something like a record or an object around.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        > exactly the problem that this thread pointed out at the beginning Sure, hence why I started it. :)
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Easy here are three simple exercises: 1 - define a class in Java and a struct in C# then measure how many bytes it takes. 2 - define an array data structure in Java and C# (with value types), for graph navigation, and check which allows for cache friendly algorithms 3 - try to implement an image codec in Java using vector indexes vs the same algorithm using pointers and SIMD in C# Why do you think Oracle is adding those features to Java 10? Just to keep themselves busy?
criddell 10y ago
It's a mighty good option to have when you are negotiating with Microsoft. Imagine Google offering to Microsoft that they would adopt Microsoft development tools and technologies iff Microsoft kills Windows Phone.
- karlmdavis 10y ago
  Why on earth would Google care enough right now about MS' phone efforts for that to be something they're actively seeking? I think it's far more likely that any movement towards C# on Android would be motivated by: 1) perhaps enough devs are asking for it, and 2) it would give them extra leverage in negotiations with Oracle about Java.
  - criddell 10y ago
    Google would be foolish to think Microsoft is down for good in the phone market. If this is something they would ever consider negotiating for, they wouldn't wait until Microsoft is strong. You do it when they are weak. Plus, if they make a deal with Microsoft, Samsung can't come along and make the same deal with Microsoft for Tizen tools.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      The only foolish company would be Microsoft for thinking they still have a chance in mobile. Besides, they've already capitulated as their marketshare is below 1% and continuing to decline. It's all about the mobile ecosystems and it's something that Microsoft and Samsung will ever have.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  So you want Google to let Microsoft control their mobile development strategy if Microsoft promises to shut down their, less than 1% market share, mobile OS? Right.

Is that something Google wants? I don't see the advantage for them short of adding on C# devs

by m3rc 10y ago

Is that something Google wants? I don't see the advantage for them short of adding on C# devs

pjmlp 10y ago

C# offers more support for memory friendly coding and performance than Java, which could ultimately improve Android's performance. Of course, this would only work if they switch languages, which I don't see the Android team doing willingly without upper management "help".

snoman 10y ago
I don't think they have to switch languages. With official support/talent working on Xamarin.Android (which is already great) coming from both MS and Google, that'd be enough to make C# on android a sure thing.
geodel 10y ago
Other than some hypothetical legal advantage in Oracle vs Google case. C# in place of Java would be as likely supported by management as MS Exchange/Outlook in place of Gmail
- pjmlp 10y ago
  That was my point, given the past history to changing language proposals.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Do you have any metrics to prove your baseless assumptions?
- xorxornop 10y ago
  They said "has support for", not "is". This is a natural consequence of having value types (structs). You can even change the bit packing and other layout properties of structs.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Are you replying to the proper comment? In any case, he stated that an Android C# app would be more performant than an app coded in Java without supplying any metrics to prove his point. >This is a natural consequence of having value types (structs). You can even change the bit packing and other layout properties of structs. And yet the JVM still beats the CLR in performance.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      > And yet the JVM still beats the CLR in performance. On mobile memory-constrained devices? Can you share a benchmark demonstrating that?
      - bitmapbrother 10y ago
        The JVM reference inferred non mobile.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        There are lots of J2ME in use, in spite of Android.
        int_19h 10y ago
        Yes, and it has always had horrible perf, especially when it came to memory. Standard techniques to reduce memory pressure included never ever instantiating your classes. So basically everything is a static method, and the only data types you can use are primitives, since Java doesn't have structs (exactly the problem that this thread pointed out at the beginning). So people would instead preallocate global arrays of primitives, and referenced their elements by index, if they needed to pass something like a record or an object around.
        pjmlp 10y ago
        > exactly the problem that this thread pointed out at the beginning Sure, hence why I started it. :)
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Easy here are three simple exercises: 1 - define a class in Java and a struct in C# then measure how many bytes it takes. 2 - define an array data structure in Java and C# (with value types), for graph navigation, and check which allows for cache friendly algorithms 3 - try to implement an image codec in Java using vector indexes vs the same algorithm using pointers and SIMD in C# Why do you think Oracle is adding those features to Java 10? Just to keep themselves busy?

criddell 10y ago

It's a mighty good option to have when you are negotiating with Microsoft. Imagine Google offering to Microsoft that they would adopt Microsoft development tools and technologies iff Microsoft kills Windows Phone.

karlmdavis 10y ago
Why on earth would Google care enough right now about MS' phone efforts for that to be something they're actively seeking? I think it's far more likely that any movement towards C# on Android would be motivated by: 1) perhaps enough devs are asking for it, and 2) it would give them extra leverage in negotiations with Oracle about Java.
- criddell 10y ago
  Google would be foolish to think Microsoft is down for good in the phone market. If this is something they would ever consider negotiating for, they wouldn't wait until Microsoft is strong. You do it when they are weak. Plus, if they make a deal with Microsoft, Samsung can't come along and make the same deal with Microsoft for Tizen tools.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    The only foolish company would be Microsoft for thinking they still have a chance in mobile. Besides, they've already capitulated as their marketshare is below 1% and continuing to decline. It's all about the mobile ecosystems and it's something that Microsoft and Samsung will ever have.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
So you want Google to let Microsoft control their mobile development strategy if Microsoft promises to shut down their, less than 1% market share, mobile OS? Right.