This is what happens when you let Java people write apps for your platform
apenwarr.ca
apenwarr.ca
The article doesn't seem to mention the millions of J2ME games available on run-of-the-mill phones, which are pretty high quality. So the argument that it must be Java's fault is completely misguided.
Just one 'top list' of J2ME games available, showing some pretty professional titles, by big names and small alike:
http://www.jamster.com/fw/goto/games
More likely to be the fact android is still relatively new, comparatively small market size, etc that is keeping more professional game/app developers away from it. But I'm sure it'll mature if the market size increases.
Please get away from this "Languages are soooooo important!!!" bs. Languages just don't matter. They don't.
I'm with you - Java doesn't excel particularly on conventional PC desktop apps. But that's a world away from mobile apps.
The vast majority of run-of-the-mill phones run Java J2ME apps very well.
For example:
http://www.jamster.com/fw/goto/games
The top games are pretty high quality. But the rant against Java fails to mention the billions of J2ME games downloaded... convenient.
In practice the JVM does quite well on memory usage, its only flaw being that it doesn't release memory back. If your Eclipse instance ends up using 2 GB that's because it does lots of stuff and needs 2 GB of memory.
Either way, Eclipse is comparable in memory usage with Visual Studio, which has most of its components written in C++.
The only problem with using Java for desktop apps is with native integration with the OS ... Java GUI toolkits suck badly, except one which isn't really popular ... Qt Jambi.
But in the case of Android, this discussion is not really relevant ... they use their own VM that has different optimization goals (so any comparison to the JVM is apples vs oranges), and every component you use is native to Android.
Not true. The Sun/Oracle JVM at least most definitely releases free memory. It's just rather reluctant to do so - but that, too, can be tweaked via the -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio and -XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio parameters
Check out Processing for a nimble Java app.
That said, yes, many Java developers write bad code, but so do developers who write in other languages. Java just gets a higher profile because unfortunately the Java community has a tradition of writing libraries and APIs that sacrifice usability for flexibility (that's the kindest way I can put it, anyway).
Slightly off-topic: Am I the only one who feels that Eclipse is the IDE equivalent of a hair shirt? I find its UI sluggish, its insistence on imposing its ideas about project management on you irritating, and to be generally overcomplicated. To me, NetBeans, former versions of IntelliJ, and VS are much nicer products (mind you, half the time I still just use an text editor though).
Something like the Eclipse RCP mail app demo could provide a more representative baseline memory footprint of the platform (http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-RCP-3/tutorial3.html). The Eclipse platform can be quite compact without the IDE features, JDT & online help indexing, etc.
I find this discussion very intriguing in light of Apple's now-infamous ToS clause 3.3.1 (can only use C/C++/ObjC on the iPhone). So is okay that Apple's limiting the languages you can use, because they doesn't matter? Or is this still evil on Apple's part for trying to be restrictive?
I'm not trying to troll here; I'm honestly interested in people's opinions.
Personally I tend to believe that languages do matter, and therefore Apple's policy makes sense as a way to prevent crappy ported apps, but it's still evil. It's not impossible to produce a great ported app, just more difficult; plus, porting apps isn't the only reason why you might want to run non-Objective-C code.
The Objective-C language being one very good reason for wanting to run non-Objective-C code.
Frankly, I'd much rather they adopted a direct appstore policy to reject apps that don't feel native or performant enough, rather than coming up with a second level of indirection that assumes all apps not written in their approved language of choice has those qualities.
It's no different from saying 'the last 10 apps that were submitted from Podunk were all poor, so no developer from Podunk is allowed to write iPhone apps'
Explain recursion in Applesoft (or any other 8-bit) BASIC.
The tools I have used have, yes, deeply impacted my professional development.
Had I not seen Smalltalk in mid 80's, I would have liked C++. Had I not seen Python and Zope, I would find Java and servlets and all the stuff built on them cool.
Edit: Had I not learned APL (and, to a lesser degree, Perl), I would not write program as well documented as I do now.
And while I hate Java the language, only shortsighted developers blame the language for their lack of skill. You're not primarily an artist, you're an engineer so get over it ;)
Android's development model is also proprietary, so its quality has got nothing to do with open-source.
The title of this article is "open source is stupid". I beg to differ, this article is stupid.
You can't build a F1 car or a space vehicle without amazing tools, but you can draw a striking picture or play beautiful music with the most humble of implements.
Android has Dalvik, which is a register-based virtual machine (as compared to the stack-based JVM) that's optimized for solid-state memory (which has slower access times) and with bytecode optimized for interpreting on ARM processors. I's questionable if it was the right thing to do, but it's still amazing.
Having a VM on a mobile device is debatable, but it's higher level and that's one way to achieve portability and to reduce accidental errors (memory leaks, buffer overflows).
And what language would you propose they should use? Their own? C#? And keep in mind that it has to be a language that doesn't need lots of magic to make it run efficiently, like a tracing JIT (a pragmatic choice based on current real-world constraints).
Your analogy to cars doesn't hold water. You can't build an F1 without proper knowledge, and all the tools in the world won't help you with that.
Lots of programmers that shouldn't have compiler permits enter the market every year to participate in huge projects that happen to be written in Java because the C[ITEO]O decided it's "enterprisey" enough and the consultancy opted for it in the proposal because they could hire inexperienced Java folks cheaper than they could hire inexperienced Smalltalkers or Lispers and all the Perl, Ruby and Python folks refused to wear neck ties.
yep.
Apple was always about the design first and technology second. And Google always had these in reverse. So their platforms appeal to different types of developers and it is quite natural that Android apps are produced (in a Hollywood sense of the word) by the tech people and IPhone apps are produced by the designers. Hence the obvious appearance and visual polish difference between two.
It got news.YC'ed? or HN'ed?
(since we're overgeneralizing)
I actually had an app rejected from the app store today for inappropriate use of the Detail Disclosure button. (I was using it as a login button)
Although I disagree and think its ok, I can understand how if people (like myself) just use buttons for whatever they want it can result in a very inconsistent user experience.
That said the login button is now a rounded rect.
The exodus has been happening since Android was released, but now that MS has finally come to their senses with WM7 (WM7:WM6::Zune:Janus) there's no future left in doing total UI conversions for manufacturers/carriers wanting artificial product differentiation.