They can’t maintain this kind of cross-platform workability.
Cell phones are schizophrenic, they don’t know if they are supposed to be phones, computers, Facebook interfaces, GPS devices, or toasters!
Same with much if not most of the new hardware coming out.
Hey, a single approach over all these types of devices is a great idea, but it’s just not going to work! They are functionally different.
And I don’t give a rats rear end if Java runs on all those things. Java has been junk since the word go. Another good idea that had bad implementation.
Nope.
Cell phones are schizophrenic, they don’t know if they are supposed to be phones, computers, Facebook interfaces, GPS devices, or toasters!
This is true; though I think there was similar situations w/ early PCs [and nonstandard-that-became-standard] hardware.
Interesting how some of the software was set-up for hardware that never became popular; example: DOS INT 10, AH = $04 VIDEO - READ LIGHT PEN POSITION
Same with much if not most of the new hardware coming out.
This is true; and what's kind of sad is there've been some very interesting hardware -- the Rekursiv processor (OOP in the chip, basically), the Symbolics LISP Machine (custom hardware, the OS in LISP, with the ability to do real-time patching of the OS while in-use), the R-1000 (a custom-built minicomputer for Ada programming)
Hey, a single approach over all these types of devices is a great idea, but it’s just not going to work! They are functionally different.
A single approach is feasible [in a sense] with something like Ada, which was designed for large software projects (packages/generics play nicely together for making SW components) and the language spec allows construction of compilers that reject the source-code if it is unable to compiler it (e.g. trying to use Type K is Range 0..2**32-1 on an 8-bit processor). [The formals of a generic package can require another package -- so if you made your photography subsystem dependent on the camera package (device driver) you could build a whole cell-phone framework.]
That level of design is, quite frankly, not really even considered in most SW development these days. (Unsurprising given how much is done on Desktop Applications or *shudder* javascript or PHP*.)
And I don’t give a rats rear end if Java runs on all those things. Java has been junk since the word go. Another good idea that had bad implementation.
I tend to agree... though the JVM is separate from the language which means you can have other languages compile to the JVM, so it might not be quite as bad as it would otherwise be -- though in-practice you'd be hardpressed to find a company using a non-Java language targeting the JVM {Much like C# & .NET}.
* How can you expect a program to work when you you're assigning "random-shit" to variables? -- John Carmack, QuakeCon 2011@~15:45