4 ms·
> JNI worked it just wasnt as ergonomic as it could have been - which was on purpose There's a reason they're calling it the 'FFM' API and not JNI v2. The API
by miffy900 2y ago
> JNI worked it just wasnt as ergonomic as it could have been - which was on purpose
There's a reason they're calling it the 'FFM' API and not JNI v2. The API devs were correct in rethinking the approach to native interop.
This just proves my point; being crappy ON PURPOSE is why it's a dead end; it's very difficult to improve something that's been deliberately designed badly.
Besides that, no Java dev in their right mind is going to continue to use JNI once they upgrade to Java 22 and realise FFM exists.
- peterashford 2y agoThere's no reason to use it now, yes. It wasn't a dead end because people absolutely could and were using it just fine (if not happily)
- pjmlp 2y agoI will keep using JNI, first of all because I cannot stand its boilerplate instead of having something nice like on .NET side, even jextract can't make up for it. Secondly, our libraries also land on Android applications, and lets see if FFM ever lands on ART.