RoboVM 0.0.1 released
Linked by sloth on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 19:22 UTC
Java The first preview release of RoboVM has just been made available. The primary goal of the project is to make it possible to develop native iOS applications in Java that use native iOS Cocoa Touch APIs. The RoboVM compiler translates Java bytecode into ARM or x86 machine code. The core classes (java.lang, java.util, java.io, etc.) are based on Android's runtime classes. RoboVM's compile time tools are GPLv2 licensed while the runtime is released under business-friendly licenses, mostly the Apache License v2.0.
E-mail Print r 0   12 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kmg
Order by: Score:
Add Comment Post a Comment
Against terms?
by cosmotic on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 19:50 UTC
cosmotic
Member since:
2010-01-31

Wouldn't this violate the Apple terms?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Against terms?
by sukru on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:11 UTC in reply to "Against terms?"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

MonoTouch does the same thing (for .Net, and commercial but the idea is the same), and they have been around for years.

So, I think they should be okay.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Against terms?
by moondevil on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:34 UTC in reply to "Against terms?"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Why should it?

After the only C, C++, Objective-C mis-step, Apple now allows for native code regardless of the language.

Although for many people Java == Oracle VM, there are several VMs around, including native compilers for Java.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Against terms?
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:15 UTC in reply to "Against terms?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They don't allow JIT engines.

If this is an ahead-of-time compiler then there's no reason why not.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Against terms?
by Torbjorn Vik Lunde on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:26 UTC in reply to "Against terms?"
Torbjorn Vik Lunde Member since:
2009-09-04

I think they loosened the terms regarding programming languages and tools a few years ago. For example, RubyMotion which allows you to write iOS apps in Ruby is allowed.

Reply Score: 2

Great!
by moondevil on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:35 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

We need more native compilers for Java.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Great!
by Kochise on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:51 UTC in reply to "Great!"
RE[2]: Great!
by Kochise on Thu 24th Jan 2013 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Great!"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Java is so wonderful :

http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/27108/313143.aspx

Ain't enough programming languages out there that solve the same problem Java does, without the intrinsic hassle of Java ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

RE: Great!
by ebasconp on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:16 UTC in reply to "Great!"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

gcj is also a good java ahead-of-time compiler. ok, ok, I do not know if there is some work on it to be supported on iOS, but, it would qualify, I think.

Edited 2013-01-24 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Great!
by moondevil on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Great!"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The work on GCJ has slowed down to snail speed when most of the developers moved to other things.

Last update on the GCC site is from 2009.

If it wasn't for the source control history, you would hardly notice any work is still being done.

Most of the native compilers I know for Java are all commercial solutions, maybe this is why people tend not to use them, as they rather use free stuff.

Edit: typo

Edited 2013-01-24 06:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Great!
by intangible on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great!"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I've been pretty bummed to see GCJ development almost stop, but this project still seems to be moving forward at least (not exactly the same goals as GCJ, but still looks interesting): http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/index.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Great!
by moondevil on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great!"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks for sharing.

Reply Score: 2

Add Comment Post a Comment