Google Taps StackOverflow as Official Android Dev Support | Hacker News Reader

Google Taps StackOverflow as Official Android Dev Support

readwriteweb.com

68 pointsjot19 comments

Another nail in the coffin of Google Groups as a useful method of communication.

Apples and oranges. I don't see SO as being useful for prolonged discussion, not does it convey any sense of a close-knit community.

Also, I get Google Group messages in my Thunderbird in-box so I don't have to keep checking to see if there's anything new and I can filter, save, highlight items as I see fit. I much prefer mailing lists over bulletin boards, and SO is much like the latter.

And then someone started http://www.forceclose.com/ for Android questions using StackExchange

I have a feeling that forceclose is targetting the AOSP style builds and users, such as Cyanogen Mod. I hardly think official Android support will ever touch that segment of the community.

I have no idea what any of that means :)

AOSP = Android Open Source Project. He's suggesting that forceclose is more to help people modify the Android operating system than to help people write Android applications.

Thanks. I'm unfamiliar with the Android dev landscape and only posted it since I saw it on Twitter earlier and thought it was related.

Stackoverflow is supposedly one of the more popular Q&A sites for IPhone developers:

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/podcast-57/

...Stack Overflow has become a very popular destination for iPhone development. This is completely accidental, but it is a valid reflection of the vibrant and growing iPhone development community. If you’re an iPhone developer, check out the Mobile Orchard website and podcast, which even has a best of Stack Overflow for iPhone developers!...

I remember reading that StackOverflow was built on the .NET platform.

If that is correct, it is interesting that Google would not just give up on Google groups, but move to a solution that is built on top of Microsoft's platform

Well, Google isn't hosting SO inhouse. They're just using the main website for support. Also, this isn't all of Google, it's the Android team, which mainly develops using Sun's technology :)

And IBM's technology (Eclipse). And Apple's technology (webkit). Heck, they'd be remiss not to use some Microsoft tech. :)

Webkit's also KDE's technology. But yes, you make a good point - saying 'Android is built on Sun's technology' is misleading, as it seems to imply Android is mainly Sun code when then that's not true (dalvik is a from scratch implementation, and the VM is a small part of a useful environment).

Why would it matter what stack the platform is using?

(Which reminds me, does Hotmail still run on Solaris?)

According to Wikipedia: "Hotmail originally ran on a mixture of FreeBSD and Solaris operating systems. A project was started to move Hotmail to Windows 2000. In June 2001, Microsoft claimed this had been completed; a few days later they retracted and admitted that the DNS functions of the Hotmail system were still reliant on FreeBSD." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotmail

clearly, it matters to you since you're bringing up the question of Hotmail. Btw Hotmail was acquired by Microsoft and Microsoft began porting it to Windows many years ago. They never intended to keep it running on a non-windows platform.

I was just being snarky. I find it interesting to hear how other people set up the sites I use, but I don't much care so long as they work when I try to use them.

You make it sound as though google bought stackoverflow, that is not the case, they are merely buying branding for a set of tags on stackoverflow (something that adobe and red-gate have already done).

I'm sure no one thinks that Google bought the company.

Google had a choice of multiple solutions. They chose the one that was built on .NET. Clearly, the primary reason they picked StackOverflow is because they like the solution provided by StackOverflow (and this doesn't say that Google would prefer .NET themselves, in fact, it is safe to assume that they wouldn't)

My point is that this decision is just another example of how anti-msft people are wrong when they say that .NET/Windows is not a good or viable platform

I wouldn't construe this as an endorsement of the platform. More of an endorsement of the execution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com