Compartilhar via

J# and the .NET Compact Framework?

  • Artigo

Itai Frenkel, writes:
"J# will rescue Smartphones

WMS ( Windows Mobile-based Smartphones ) does not have many games and is not doing so well in the consumer market. Game developers prefer Java 2 Micro Edition (J2ME), becuase it is supported by Symbian and proprietary mobile operating systems. In this market Java == Games, and each mobile phone must have it.
Microsoft has to accept the fact that they entered the mobile market late,and they need a shortcut to keep up with J2ME success. Fortunately, Microsoft has developed
J#.NET , which allows to compile Java source code and run it in .NET. With a small effort, Microsoft could adapt this technology and make hundreds of J2ME games available for Windows Smartphones."

I'm internest in what you all think? Would J# on devices be useful to you?

Comments

  • Anonymous
    August 14, 2004
    I own a Sony Ericsson and the best games are the Java Games. I have seen the Windows Mobile phones and they look cool, but comparable to Symbian. But the fact is by now, most customers of mobile phones are those who have already used them and have certain expectations of them -one of them being games. I was realy sad when I didnt have snakes on my sony Ericsson (nokia did). But then the fact remains I can actually create the game and download it to my mobile phone (for free). So, unless Microsoft is going to create something to rival the power of independence and creativity that Java thrusts upon developers, I dont think J#.NET is going to create any impact.

  • Anonymous
    August 14, 2004
    divya, I do not follow you.

    Had your Smartphone supported .NET Compact Framewrok, you could still create a game in Java and load it to the phone.

    The only change is that you will use a different compiler (J#.NET).

    Isn't that the impact you were looking for ?

  • Anonymous
    August 15, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 16, 2004
    yup all i need is a different compiler. But I dont have the source of the games all the time. Moreover, isnt J3.NET compiler a paid for compiler unlike the java?

  • Anonymous
    August 16, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 17, 2004

    Actually, I consider Moto's pulling out of Symbian a major good news for J2ME -- Moto to J2ME is IBM to J2EE. On the other hand, I do not think today's J# will help mobile phone developers. Check out my thoughts here:

    http://www.enterprisej2me.com/blog/ms/?postid=73

    cheers
    Michael

  • Anonymous
    August 19, 2004
    I am a die-hard Microsoft application developer, but when Microsoft refuses to make their stuff work on cross-platform, I am always tempted to switch all my efforts to Java. For example, the only way that I can create an application for both palm and pocket pc, I have to go to Java (J2ME). I am tired of that... maybe I will switch all my development over.

  • Anonymous
    August 20, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 20, 2004
    Michael,

    I've read your post but you did not refer to the original thought:
    What would happen if Microsoft would support J2ME compatability in J#? Will it help its smartphones ?

    Itai

  • Anonymous
    August 20, 2004
    I agree, this is a must have! Source level compatibility for Sun's MIDP 1.0 and 2.0 J2ME implementations would be fantastic. The delima for Microsoft is that this would allow non SmartPhone J2ME developmnet though Microsoft's Visual Studio.NET IDE.

    If you look at the J# has been implemented you'll notice it's a one way street. In order to leverage VS.NET you really can't write Java code in J# and expect it to run anywhere other than on top of the .NET Framework. This isn't by design behavior, however why should Microsoft go out of their way to aid non-Microsoft developers. This is the delima. J# is designed to make it easy for Java2 developers to come over to .NET, beyond that it doesn't have a purpose (although it could).

    There is room for a third-party, or even a group of developers to join togeather and create a virtual J2ME on top of the current J# implementation.

  • Anonymous
    August 23, 2004
    I hope J# doesn`t ends up like VisualJava

  • Anonymous
    August 23, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 24, 2004
    Maybe I'm getting old.... I just don't understand this "game on a phone" hype.

    I need my Windows Powered Smartphone (Orange SPV e200) to make phone calls, send a SMS (twice a month) and check my calender on the go.

    But games? Pleeeze.
    Toys to the boys.

  • Anonymous
    September 01, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 07, 2004
    Jens: Many of us have been nagging MS for some time to add mobile device development support to the entry-level versions of Visual Studio.NET....using current Visual Studio 2005 terminology that would mean an Express version.
    Let's hope the message gets through (I believe a lot of the problem is the fantasy that mobile development is an "Enterprise" activity. Yeah, right). I think the v 2.0 version of the .NET Framework SDK will support mobile development, and that's free, but I don't see too many people queuing up for that option.

    I think there's more work involved in implementing J# on the Compact Framework than many people assume, since it also presumably involves creating a set of J2ME-mimicking libraries for J#...and then which profiles do you support?
    And last but not least: Let's not forget that J# is not Java - you won't be able to run Java bytecode against the Compact Framework, so at best what you are getting for your trouble is the equivalent of the portability of old C programs: Write once, recompile everywhere.

    Logically the best solution for people who want to deploy Java games on the Smartphone 2003 platform (or Pocket PC for that matter) is a Java runtime, if one happens to be provided for that device...if you want it to run on the Compact Framework, just write it in C# or VB.NET (and be glad that you're not dealing with the joy of debugging cross-patform applications).

  • Anonymous
    September 07, 2004
    I'm not at all sure this will work. To be honest, a Java VM that's compatible with the big players in the cell phone market makes more sense and should be easier to do..

    What I'd like to see is the reverse - .NET CF made available on other platforms. Ditto for .NET in general. Then I could write games and apps in .NET and not have to deal with all the myriad variations.

    Even though I'm a .NET fanatic, I just got a Sony Ericsson T610 and I want to write applets for it - and that means I have to get back into Java (bleah). I'd really prefer doing it in .NET.

    I also have friends on Macs and I can't convince them how easy it is to write great apps in .NET, especially with VS.NET 2003 (and even moreso with 2005), but if I could write them on Windows and deploy to MacOS X... that would wow them.

    But....

    No can do.

  • Anonymous
    September 07, 2004
    Jens, actually, the C# Standard edition can be used nicely to write embedded software. The only thing missing is the New Project wizard for the embedded stuff, so you have to create your projects by hand, but you can target whatever you want (yes, even device drivers). The compiler is the same as the Pro version, and the .NET CF is a free download.

  • Anonymous
    September 11, 2004
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    September 12, 2004
    I suggest backing up CrossFire [1] from AppForge or buying the company and making the product freely available for developers. It sounds like officially backing up Mono (not quite the same in terms of platform) so I believe that it will definately make more developers to start developing with VS.NET. The other suggestion is to make a low-cost Express version for developing CF apps.

  • Anonymous
    September 12, 2004
    I suggest backing up CrossFire [1] from AppForge or buying the company and making the product freely available for developers. It sounds like officially backing up Mono (not quite the same in terms of platform) so I believe that it will definately make more developers to start developing with VS.NET. The other suggestion is to make a low-cost Express version for developing CF apps.

  • Anonymous
    September 12, 2004
    I am a .net fanatic and would like to see .Net Compact Framework supported on most moblie devices. Its so cool to develop apps in C# and VB.NET. The J2ME development environment looks very premitive to me.

    .Net is the way forward!!!

  • Anonymous
    November 22, 2004
    Will's Blog - My.Thoughts == My.World » NullPointerException on phone?

  • Anonymous
    April 30, 2008
    TomTom has released firmware version 6. 11 for all GO 510 and 910 owners. However, the update is only available via the TomTom HOME desktop application. When you cradle a 510 or 910 and launch the HOME application, the update will automatically be downloaded

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009
    PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=visual-studio-j-and-the-net-compact-framework

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=1566

  • Anonymous
    June 19, 2009
    PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=8673