The Following User Says Thank You to Capt'n Corrupt For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-25
, 16:59
|
|
Posts: 2,427 |
Thanked: 2,986 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#162
|
The Following User Says Thank You to daperl For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-25
, 19:03
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#164
|
I will not take back what I said without convincing (and relevant) evidence: A dalvik binary is MORE portable than a binary compiled for a target platform considering that it uses a VM! This is why VMs were created in the first place!
The Following User Says Thank You to wmarone For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-25
, 19:15
|
|
Posts: 3,524 |
Thanked: 2,958 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Delta Quadrant
|
#165
|
Off on semi-related tangent, is not the portability of Dalvik binaries largely irrelevant due to the extremely narrow range of architectures (officially only ARM) that Android is running on? Certainly you have variations between ARMv6 and ARMv7, but that's so trivial as to be easily automated with the click of a button.
I could always take the Free Software bent and note that VM-based software is irrelevant if you have the source code.
|
2010-09-25
, 20:25
|
Posts: 168 |
Thanked: 29 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#166
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jean2323 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-28
, 08:26
|
Posts: 395 |
Thanked: 165 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ TMO
|
#167
|
Indeed, this is true most of the time. In recent days, though, Android is deployed to x86 devices in the form of Google TV, and the rate of evolution of the mobile arena does not elude to a clear architecture leader. The VM leaves the arch out of the equation so acrh innovation can happen without sacrificing compatibility.
Yes, code is indeed very portable often rendering VMs unecessary, of course....
The Following User Says Thank You to rickysio For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-29
, 14:35
|
Posts: 2,829 |
Thanked: 1,459 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Finland
|
#168
|
|
2010-09-29
, 14:41
|
|
Posts: 4,384 |
Thanked: 5,524 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
|
#169
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ysss For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-09-29
, 14:50
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#170
|
What kind of OS does that? Or is it AT&T fault or whattahell? Those "resolutions" sound pretty voodoo
Tags |
n900-fail-wail |
Thread Tools | |
|
I will not take back what I said without convincing (and relevant) evidence: A dalvik binary is MORE portable than a binary compiled for a target platform considering that it uses a VM! This is why VMs were created in the first place! Sure they may require libraries, drivers, etc, as do targeted binaries. However they do NOT require compatible architecture, which at the very least is a requisite of targeted binaries, and as such are... wait for it... MORE PORTABLE.
Now if there's some non-VM, auto-binary-translate feature in play that is widely used, I will concede this point. But last I checked debian (and similar) repo's contain multiple versions compiled for different architectures, and such a system doesn't exist.
What is it about platform tribalism that turns [assumed] reasonable people into simple extrapolating argumentative pedants?