If Java is so bad

then why is everyone using it? Checkmate, losers.

>>40
Don't forget stuff like SIM cards and credit cards. Those little chips run Java bytecode, because why the fuck not?

>>41

Java bytecode

No shit really? :)

>>41

Seriously? Yeah, I guess you could do that, but for embedded, I'd use C (maybe I'm weird, but I just like C)

>>42,43
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Card

It's a subset, but the list of absent features is fairly short.

There's no reason to use C for something that is not even close to realtime or in any other way performance-hungry. If anything, using bytecode-compiled language would probably produce smaller code, which is much more important in the circumstances.

Being crossplatform (across different SIM cards and credit chips) helps too, I guess. In fact in this kind of applications you want to be as isolated from hardware as possible (which is unusual for embedded in general), and totally don't want to deal with hardware-specific bugs when you were not sufficiently isolated. Oh, and when there's a possibility to put in additional modules from different manufacturers, you don't ever ever ever want to deal with the bugs that arise from the interaction between them.

>>44

What the fuck? This actually made sense. I will masturbate in the living room.

>>40
You would use Python, right?

use it:
--
wold best Enterprise Framework
http://v8.1c.ru/eng/the-platform/
it can move u die time litle in past

>>16
prose?

bump

>>44
There's no reason to use C for something that is not even close to realtime or in any other way performance-hungry.
This is exactly why I use Scheme.

wold best Enterprise Framework
http://v8.1c.ru/eng/the-platform/
it can move u die time litle in past

>>50
M'eh. I still use C most of the time.

>>9
i'm currently trying to get a grip of it. do you use it?

>>1
because Java rode in on the hype of OOP and GC, so Sun promised that Java would change the world. PROTIP: it didn't.

>>44
If anything, using bytecode-compiled language would probably produce smaller code, which is much more important in the circumstances.
smaller than x86 maybe, but ARM machine code is extremely dense. i highly doubt equivalent java bytecode would be smaller

>>54
but ARM machine code is extremely dense
Is it really? Or are you talking about thumb code?

>>55
No, he's talking about the people who code in it.

>>56
x86 is superior because it's popular, right?

>>57
Is it? I thought ARM assembler was the hip one.

I've just recently been working with a Cortex M3 and it's... "ok" is what I wanna say. Wrote in C, btw, because I don't hate myself. Trying to get Java on that would be like pulling teeth

>>59
What are you using an M3 for? You wouldn't want Java on that, but I think a serviceable JVM is probably available given the Android landscape.