>Because Google has broken Java portability Android was never intended to be used for Java portability so nothing has been broken. >I cannot just take a rando

>Because Google has broken Java portability Android was never intended to be used for Java portability so nothing has been broken. >I cannot just take a random Java library and have it work on Android. Android is not compatible with Java so why would you expect a random Java library, meant to work with Java, to work on Android? >Thanks to Google now I need to search for Android Java libraries, instead of Java libraries. A comprehensive list of libraries that work with Android has already been created so why would you need to look for Java libraries? >Funny every time I search for Java on https://developer.android.com/develop/index.html https://developer.android.com/develop/index.html I get several hundred results, and yet Google doesn't call their fork Java, go figure. The Android SDK is a fork of the JDK. Did you expect them to rename every instance of the word "Java" to something else just for the sake of differentiation? >What I care is that now I need to write two libraries instead of one. I'm sure there are a plenty of libraries that work on either platform, but such is the nature of a fork. Support the platform you care about. >Oracle (and Sun before) doesn't have a problem with companies that follow the license rules, there several commercial JDK vendors all of them nicely getting along with Oracle. Google doesn't use the Oracle JDK they use the OpenJDK so why is a commercial license needed to use a forked version of an open source project?