 |
msmobiles.com/f
dicussions about Microsoft Smartphone and Pocket PC phone
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msmobiles.com_robot
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 16777215
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: For developers: Microsoft reduces prices of SDKs for .NET development for Windows Mobile devices |
 |
|
During 3GSM World Congress 2005 we were interviewing Jesus David Rivas from Sun Corporation, who is there a CTO responsible for wireless Java. In the middle of this interview, all of a sudden, he interrupted the int...
Read more at http://www.msmobiles.com/news.php/3703.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mayevski
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The conclusions are not exactly true:
1) There exist dev.tools that let you design Java MIDP interfaces graphically
2) There will be no free eMbedded Visual C++ after 4.0. So while one can still use it for development for existing devices, this is not guaranteed in future. Microsoft can easily drop supporting eVC with, for example, Magneto SDK, making this SDK compatible only with VS.NET 2005. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arisme2
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Paris, France
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Conclusions: wireless Java has other APIs for various platforms, i.e. Java Swing and Java server side and wireless Java - all have totally different APIs - that are not subsets of each other.
|
it's true for the GUI side, and for a good reason - Wireless Java is meant to target different devices with different capabilities, different screen resolutions and different color depths.
Try to design an interface with a X-Y layout and see how it behaves when running on a 176x220/320x240/640x480 device 
| Quote: |
Wireless .NET - i.e. .NET Compact Framework - is just a subset of full .NET but APIs are the same, i.e. the very same programming models - just simpler, with less functions!
|
yes, less functions for sure  (see OpenNetCF)
| Quote: |
It means that life of developers is much much easier and they can develop much more effectively.
|
Sorry, I can target much more devices from different vendors with Wireless Java ... including Microsoft devices, as the Java VM in the Typhoon/Feeler is one of the best speedwise (see jbenchmark). Interoperability is a key point for many developers. What's the point in learning a new mobile language/platform if you can only use it on one operating system when the handset market is heterogenous by design ?
| Quote: |
Another advantage of .NET development for mobile devices is ability to draw forms graphically - with mouse - what in case of wireless Java development environments is not possible - developers must manually design UI and forms and it is much more cumbersome to make GUIs with wireless Java than with .NET !
|
See first point.
| Quote: |
Clearly software development with .NET technologies is superior to wireless Java development.
|
I missed the clearly part.
| Quote: |
Don't forget also that for writing applications for Windows Mobile devices in C++ (so called "native applications") one doesn't need to buy anything.
|
wow that's great and unique (and sadly, EVC C++ standards compliance is quite unique)
| Quote: |
Buying is only needed for C# and for Visual Basic .NET - included in Visual Studio .NET - for development of so called "managed applications" (or in other words: .NET applications). To develop software in C++ one can download so called eVC+ 4.0 (embedded Visual C++) with proper service packs and emulators and platform SDKs (like Smartphone 2003 SDK) - all for free and available from Microsoft, for example here.
|
you don't need to buy anything to develop Wireless Java applications either 
Now I'm not saying that Wireless Java is the ultimate answer (and I don't believe in any IT silver bullet), but it's providing a very interesting balance between rich applications and multiple vendors portability. You seem to forget this quite often.
But feel free to compare Wireless Java with the .Net CF when a .Net application is running (for free, not with additional licenses costs for the developer) on a Symbian, Palm, Embedded Linux (Sun Micro. is using the Sharp Zaurus plattform to test the new reference VMs), .Net native operating system (thinking of SavaJe here) and obscure closed & proprietary operating system. Then the comparison may be worth reading |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EJR
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mayevski wrote: | The conclusions are not exactly true:
1) There exist dev.tools that let you design Java MIDP interfaces graphically
2) There will be no free eMbedded Visual C++ after 4.0. So while one can still use it for development for existing devices, this is not guaranteed in future. Microsoft can easily drop supporting eVC with, for example, Magneto SDK, making this SDK compatible only with VS.NET 2005. |
1) name one!
2) speculations - it could be that eVC++ after 4.0 will stay free. How can you know that it will not be free, if Microsoft has not announced anything in this respect yet?
To Arisme2: .NET CF can access all functions of a mobile device, while wireless Java is very limited and very often it can't access many things, even file system can't be accessed! ... so really .NET CF is more powerful than wireless Java! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arisme2
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 23
Location: Paris, France
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I won't because I don't need this feature. The concept behind Mobile Java UI design is, one more time, portability. You tell the platform which components should be present on your form, and the platform will render them as it fits best. This has some drawbacks (mainly you never really know how your application will look like before starting it on the device you want to target), but this seems to me a reasonable approach when you want to run on a (almost unknown) device.
| Quote: | | .NET CF can access all functions of a mobile device, while wireless Java is very limited and very often it can't access many things, even file system can't be accessed! ... so really .NET CF is more powerful than wireless Java! |
which part of balance between rich applications and multiple vendors portability did you not understand ?
Wireless Java is designed to be platform agnostic. .NET CF is designed to run on a Microsoft platform. If you don't understand why this makes a feature comparison between them useless (at best), I can't help you. And I'm not even going into a argument to say that .NET CF should be compared with PP, not MIDP, if you want to start comparing both platforms. It will still be useless, just a bit less.
And to finish with a nice troll (because after all this should be mandatory in all tabloid posts), I'm not taking into account the evolution process of Java and .NET either. Would you rather have an open standard committee releasing specifications and test suites, or some private VIP meetings and a few blogs publishing information when they feel like doing it ? You decide |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
