4 ms·
>From my reading of the article he mentions the fact that J2ME fared poorly on code portability across devices and that android fares even worse. Well clearly
by ergo98 16y ago
>From my reading of the article he mentions the fact that J2ME fared poorly on code portability across devices and that android fares even worse.
Well clearly having worse fragmentation would be less developer friendly, would it not? One follows from the other.
>As an aside I do agree with him that Android is more fragmented now than J2ME was back in the day.
No one who actually developed for Android and J2ME would even dream of saying this. Gosling gets too much of his news from Engadget, I suspect.
- dman 16y agoIt might be just me but when someone says developer friendly I imagine theyre talking about a solid api, easy development cycle, good documentation , helpful community. If someone were to talk about one use case thats more broken on one platform vs another I would not parse that as one platform is more developer friendly vs another. Its been sometime since I tried to hack anything on android (i briefly tinkered with it around version 1.6) but here is an example of some cross device breakage that I ran into - http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1480 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1480 .
- ergo98 16y agoThat is the poster child of different behaviors -- bring up Android fragmentation, and it's invariably what gets brought up. Sure, it's a problem. It should behave consistently. It's one very, very, very small element of the platform.
- dman 16y agoHaving intents without having a mechanism to specify an interface for applications that handle intents is the part that seems broken to me. As I said I have not been following android so I do not know if this has subsequently been addressed.