Comments on: Palm Licenses IBM's Java J2ME Runtime
Article Comments
(29 comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.
Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.
RE: Finally!
RE: Finally!
If the T|T were to ship now, 32mb would be fine but if Palm's going to adhere to the standard release schedule and put out something in October, then they will need 64mb of memory, if only to look "competitive". Also, I'd bet on an OS5-refreshed T|W coming at the same time with J2ME standard.
RE: Finally!
RE: Finally!
The SWT, while not technically a Java standard, provides very nice performance for what is a very complex app in the Eclipse IDE case. However, even Swing based applications perform fairly well on modern machines and the implementation is fairly solid (not perfect, but pretty good) at this point.
RE: Finally!
> This is no different then on the desktop - java is just too slow (and implementation too buggy)
Quite frankly, Java is very fast considering what it is and what is trying to do. Certainly NOT sluggish (Swing IS slow giving false inidcations about Java's speed) and NO WAY buggy. Bringing J2ME to Palm is the best news PalmOS had in years. Now waiting for Unicode support ...
RE: Finally!
One point. It is possible in most instances to get performance that is practically the same as c++ (im generalizing here so bear with me). But a study done on this subject showed that the amount of skill required to do this was - on average - greater than was required for an equivalent c++ app. In other words - skilled/advanced programmers can get (on average) performance comparable to that of c++ code written by unskilled/inexperienced programmers. Not only does this go against Suns notion of Java being easier than c++ - but it is also not practical in the real world where a company has x number of programmers to throw at a given project, with intangables such as 'skill level' being impossible to quantify to such a level of precision as to predict end performance of an application. So a company can not bank on the fact that all of its people are better than average super-genius developers and hope that *maybe* they will get c++ performance from their java code.
I'll try and find a link to this very interesting study and post it here.
Again
- java is great server side - i wouldn't use anything else
- java is great for web applets
- with simple apps, go with java because you gain cross-platform compatibility ('write once, debug everywhere' ;)
RE: Finally!
> it takes what seems like 15 seconds just start the runtime and launch the app.
When exactly were you doing this? 6-8 years ago!?! You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Just to be clear how silly your comment is, I just launched our ~100K LOC client through Java Web Start (from home where the network connection to the office isn't that great). In 15 seconds, it verified that I had an old version of the software downloaded, downloaded the multi-megabyte jars for the latest version, and launched the app. Restarting once I had the current version downloaded took about 3 seconds.
Oh, and that's not the only large scale Java client I've worked on.
> So a company can not bank on the fact that all of its people are
> better than average super-genius developers
Boy, you can say that again.
RE: Finally!
There is actually a fairly strong case that a VM based architecture can actually out perform C++ applications in some cases. Particularly when that C++ is being deployed over disparate architectures. The Just in Time Compiler (JIT) can make better assumptions about the actual hardware it's running on and perform some pretty nifty optimizations that the static C++ compiler can't. For a number of reasons this doesn't always hold true (particularly with load speed).. but it's definitely a very active research field right now.
I do encourage you to check out the Eclipse IDE. That's a very complex application, and it performs as well as any other IDE I've ever used.
RE: Finally!
Hey - i can be convinced. I did check out Poseidon - and i am quite impressed with how nicely it works.
>>When exactly were you doing this? 6-8 years ago!?!
Ouch;) You caught me - but it was 2-3 years ago:) I've never ruled out Java optimization improvements getting performance to increase. The reason i haven't followed whether or not Java is finally workable for real client apps running on PCs (after years of Sun and co. saying it was when it definitely wasn't), is because i jumped to PDA software development 3 years ago. In 'PDA land' - like on desktops several years ago - the performance just ain't there. Im glad to see that optimizations to JRE and the fact that PCs run at 2+ ghz has made this a practical reality - but im sitting here with an ipaq in my hand, with a java app that takes 15 seconds to start. So, getting back to the topic - the company i work for wouldn't build anything but very simple apps for pdas using java. Should we chance wasting thousands in $$$ evertime the geek community claims its really-really ready now? No. I'll wait for the proof. BTW - why haven't Netscape and Corel made a 2nd attempt? Its clear from the examples you folks have posted above that it might now be technically possible to do java versions of these apps with no notiable difference in performance. Im betting that for major commerical apps, they are a little wary of being burned again - even though the proof is there. On PDAs the 'proof' is that java is not there. Seeing is believing - i won't waste a dime of my companies $$$ til im sure beyond a doubt that the performance MORE than meets the need. Hey - i'd prefer java - i like the language. Its just that from now on i'll assume that the claims preceed the reality by at least 3 yrs.
Isn't OS6 supposed to take care of this?
RE: Isn't OS6 supposed to take care of this?
RE: Isn't OS6 supposed to take care of this?
Exactly. The last thing PalmSource should do is waste resources writing their own JVM. Nobody would expect that anyway. Let Sun and IBM handle this.
IBM's PDA Java
RE: IBM's PDA Java
(BTW, Desktop Java programmers have often been disappointed by the differences between J2ME and J2SE, but they're really not that far apart. A lot has to do with things like the communications stack being different and the lack of AWT in J2ME, but even that's changing...)
RE: IBM's PDA Java
AFAIK, there is still nothing AWT-like even in MIDP 2.0. It is all still geared toward providing mobile phone interfaces. Which is fine if you're programming for a phone.
RE: IBM's PDA Java
RE: IBM's PDA Java
> seen full AWT ports for J2ME/MIDP for devices like PalmOS handhelds.
But there is not currently (AFAIK) any standard profile or optional package (for lack of a better terms) for providing AWT or a subset under CLDC. They should've finalized the GUI parts of PDAP if they wanted that, instead they were dropped. kAWT is nice, but not a standard.
AWT only comes into play with CDC in a limited sense under Personal Basis Profile and fully under Personal Profile. A whole different beast than CLDC with MIDP.
You are correct, MIDP is for the phone and other limited device world. Makes much less sense for the PDA world where most devices have similar display hardware and stylus input. Something AWT-like is more appropriate there.
That does not mean that also supporting MIDP on the Palm is a bad idea, but it should instead be for extra compatability with more apps, not as the standard for Palm development.
RE: IBM's PDA Java
http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/review/jsr075/index.html
I think that IBM should implement this, if they haven't... PDAlets look nice!
Also, J2ME MIDP 2.0 is a great platform for small games. The new features are very interesting.
I've never been a big fan of Java. It has some bugs, Swing has never felt "natural" to me, relatively low performance... Anyways, on the server and mobile world (where there are a lot of different vendors and hardware), I think it makes sense to use it. Let's see the quality of the IBM software.
RE: IBM's PDA Java
If you read the web pages there and/or are on any of the associated mail lists, you would know that PDAP basically turned into two optional packages: 1. a PIM database access package and 2. a file connection package. All the GUI related items were dropped from the profile.
RE: IBM's PDA Java
(Of course, MIDP isn't the most portable, given the way most of the device manufacturers have implemented it, but at least you have a chance of finding a device that can run your app...)
CLDC and MIDP would have been nice for OS 4
Sun had a CLDC/MIDP implementation for Palm OS 3.x/4.x a year ago. I'm sure IBM's will support MIDP 2 or whatever and be better in other ways, but I don't really feel this is taking advantage of the newer Palm hardware.
RE: CLDC and MIDP would have been nice for OS 4
Oh, one more thing. These devices are running CPUs that are direct competitors to those running OS 5 and doing much more. There is no application (means games are excluded) that I have seen or used on a Palm that couldnt't be done as responsively under Java on a modern handheld.
And as for startup time, that's easy. Since everything is already "in memory" on a handheld, the VM simply sits in a wait-state until an application is launched.The delay in launching Java apps is that you're effectively launching two apps.
RE: CLDC and MIDP would have been nice for OS 4
AFAIK Personal Profile is not available for any CLDC configurations. It is specifically geared toward CDC, which is relatively available on the Zaurus and Pocket PC. Palm certainly is not planning on Personal Profile for CLDC.
J2ME desirable in integrated telephone Palms
If you have Tungsten W or one of the converged phones (unfortunately none of them are Palm OS 5 yet, but they're coming), this could be very useful. You can download these things over the air while waiting for flights.
RE: J2ME desirable in integrated telephone Palms
http://java.sun.com/products/midp4palm/download.html
I don't know if it'll run any of those games or not. It is somewhat out of date.
RE: J2ME desirable in integrated telephone Palms
Latest Comments
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
Finally!
_____
Fammy