Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andy Rubin Leaving Google

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#61

Post by xorcist »

slantedview wrote: post #59
xorcist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. But something I never understood was the choice of Java. For the original Android it made sense as it was an excellent argument for an acquisition. But since Google it was just an invitation for trouble with Sun/Oracle. It's not like they don't have excellent runtime designers in house. They could have taken the opportunity to go with Python or something else entirely when they rewrote so much anyway.

Java has the biggest community of application developers, so the decision made perfect sense.

How much Java is Android, really? Knowledge of Java gets you nowhere if you want to develop apps for Android.

It may be very close to Java the syntax but it's very far from Java the language or Java the runtime. And the syntax is not really the appealing part of Java.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#62

Post by xorcist »

nostrademons wrote: post #58
edraferi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I want to live in a universe where Android is built on Python3.

I would love that too, but Python is a poor choice for mobile environments where every CPU cycle costs you battery life. Python code often takes up to 30x more CPU to accomplish the same work. I already get annoyed at how quickly my Moto X drains the battery when navigating or playing games; if that were 30x faster, the phone would be useless. Now, you could argue that maybe Google should just make a more efficient P…

CPython is not very fast, but that has nothing to do with Dalvik. When designing Dalvik from scratch they could have chosen any syntax, they didn't have to stick with Java. They could just as easily have chosen something Pythonic and ended up with something close to Groovy.

Performance was obviously not the main goal with Dalvik. If it was they would have gone with something like C++ or Go. The first versions of Dalvik was quite slow. Compact bytecode looks like the design goal which probably made sense since mobile bandwidth wasn't great at the time.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#63

Post by nostrademons »

xorcist wrote: post #62
nostrademons wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love that too, but Python is a poor choice for mobile environments where every CPU cycle costs you battery life. Python code often takes up to 30x more CPU to accomplish the same work. I already get annoyed at how quickly my Moto X drains the battery when navigating or playing games; if that were 30x faster, the phone would be useless. Now, you could argue that maybe Google should just make a more efficient P…

CPython is not very fast, but that has nothing to do with Dalvik. When designing Dalvik from scratch they could have chosen any syntax, they didn't have to stick with Java. They could just as easily have chosen something Pythonic and ended up with something close to Groovy. Performance was obviously not the main goal with Dalvik. If it was they would have gone with something like C++ or Go. The first versions of Dalv…

Right, they could've chosen any syntax, but they can't necessarily choose any semantics. Dalvik (and now ART) doesn't just look like Java, it behaves like Java, which means that if you're a Java programmer you can pick up Android basically immediately and have a good idea how it works. If they'd chosen a Python syntax but left out, say, keyword arguments and metaclasses and overloading of built-in operators, I doubt many Python developers would consider it the same language.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#64

Post by DonHopkins »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #11
oldxoog wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway because I know with pretty strong confidence what went down -- The truth seems to be both (a) unpleasant for Andy and (b) unremarkable to the rest of us. In other words, it wasn't his choice, but there wasn't a scandalous smoking gun either. He just wanted what Larry wouldn't give him. Nothing that would be front page news.

I expect it might be more unpleasant for wannabe Andys. But I agree it was unremarkable. Scott McNealy used to congratulate people getting promoted with "One step up, one step closer to the door." That captured the balancing act between climbing the ladder versus being pushed off of it because someone else wanted your spot. I think Andy will be much happier in his new role, and it isn't like he has to work for a livi…

Oh yes, I remember the term for that at Sun: being promoted to "Vice President In Charge of Looking for a New Job".

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#65

Post by coldtea »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the underlying architecture of the OS though? Linux with a Java runtime and a new windowing layer that stops "normal" Linux apps running? What's impressive about that? Tons of companies did something similar. Heck, OS X/iOS is Mach+BSD based hybrid kernel with a UNIX (FreeBSD/GNU) userland and a new windowing layer that "stops normal UNIX apps running". > iOS didn't have multitasking until a lot later Ac…

This is coming from a hobbyist mobile developer, so take the following responses with the appropriate perspective: "Actually it did. It just wasn't enabled for third party apps...." This is, to my mind, the worst continuing failing of iOS, so bad that we see a front page HN post related to it at least once per month. Apple builds its apps on private APIs, while third parties must build their apps on inferior public A…

>This is, to my mind, the worst continuing failing of iOS, so bad that we see a front page HN post related to it at least once per month. Apple builds its apps on private APIs, while third parties must build their apps on inferior public APIs. Apple gets to create and use new UX, while third parties must wait until Apple uses it first. On Android, Google's apps use the same APIs my own apps use.

Yeah, it's called building a stable API. Not all APIs are ready for external consumption. Apple, since it controls the APIs and their internal apps can safely build on early APIs, since they can release in sync with any changes. Third party developers not so much. This is not some conspiracy or Apple "advantage", this is software development 101.

In fact, instead of third parties "having to build their apps on inferior public APIs", iOS's public APIs are way better, and offering more than Android APIs.

>That's funny. Apple copied wholesale the Android save and restore data bundles model that was in Android from the beginning, and said, "Look at our battery-saving multitasking."

After Android emerged a full year later than the iPhone, and with the same UI and interaction model (while just days prior to the iPhone's introduction Google only had keyboard sporting, classical-looking smartphone models as their Android mockups), there's nothing that can be said that iOS "copied" from Android with a straight face. iOS/iPhone was there first, and it set the way for all the major features. Heck, Android lead members even admitted so.

That Android, years after coming into life as an iOS clone, pioneered a few things here and there (most of which Apple worked on in secret anyway for years, like battery saving techniques) is not that impressive.

>Even more than the private APIs issue, this is what made me jump on the Android bandwagon early on and makes it hard for me to understand why a person who enjoys software development would choose the iOS ecosystem.

Because there are more things to enjoying software development than "hating closed systems" or not wanting to part with $100.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#66

Post by vorg »

xorcist wrote: post #62
nostrademons wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love that too, but Python is a poor choice for mobile environments where every CPU cycle costs you battery life. Python code often takes up to 30x more CPU to accomplish the same work. I already get annoyed at how quickly my Moto X drains the battery when navigating or playing games; if that were 30x faster, the phone would be useless. Now, you could argue that maybe Google should just make a more efficient P…

CPython is not very fast, but that has nothing to do with Dalvik. When designing Dalvik from scratch they could have chosen any syntax, they didn't have to stick with Java. They could just as easily have chosen something Pythonic and ended up with something close to Groovy. Performance was obviously not the main goal with Dalvik. If it was they would have gone with something like C++ or Go. The first versions of Dalv…

> They could just as easily have chosen something Pythonic and ended up with something close to Groovy

If you're talking about syntax then do you mean Dart? Now Dart compiles to JS, perhaps it's time for it to compile to ART.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#67

Post by lern_too_spel »

coldtea wrote: post #65
lern_too_spel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is coming from a hobbyist mobile developer, so take the following responses with the appropriate perspective: "Actually it did. It just wasn't enabled for third party apps...." This is, to my mind, the worst continuing failing of iOS, so bad that we see a front page HN post related to it at least once per month. Apple builds its apps on private APIs, while third parties must build their apps on inferior public A…

> This is, to my mind, the worst continuing failing of iOS, so bad that we see a front page HN post related to it at least once per month. Apple builds its apps on private APIs, while third parties must build their apps on inferior public APIs. Apple gets to create and use new UX, while third parties must wait until Apple uses it first. On Android, Google's apps use the same APIs my own apps use. Yeah, it's called bu…

I was hesitant to reply because your response (especially the unrelated copying rant) looked fanboy-ish instead of technical, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and see where it goes.

"Yeah, it's called building a stable API. Not all APIs are ready for external consumption."

Yet Android's APIs that allow multitasking, JITs, and sharing with arbitrary apps (instead of just the apps that Apple has blessed) have been stable too and available much longer. The stable API argument doesn't hold water.

"iOS's public APIs are way better"

As a developer, I have to disagree. Even for simple things like sharing, multitasking, default handling, and multitasking Apple's APIs remain inferior.

"[A long irrelevant rant about copying]"

Technically, the LG Prada pioneered the UI and interaction model you're talking about, but that's not the point. My point was that Android didn't use a "whatever" model for multitasking but instead designed at the outset the same save/restore transparent multitasking system that Apple adopted years later that you hold in such high esteem.

"Because there are more things to enjoying software development than 'hating closed systems' or not wanting to part with $100."

$100 per year. I have never met anybody who would prefer to pay for their hobbies when there is a free option that is just as good or better for scratching their itch.

Re: Andy Rubin Leaving Google

#68

Post by mehrdada »

nostrademons wrote: post #13
mbca wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is only a "success" insofar as being the only game in town for an open-source iOS competitor. I'm frankly amazed it ever gained any traction at all, but when your competition is non-free garbage like Symbian, Blackberry, and Windows mobile, I guess you can just win by default. Especially when you have the might of Google's multi-billion dollar support behind you. Android has already gotten miles better in the…

That could be an indication that building a viable mobile phone OS is really, really hard . While I'm also quite glad to see the recent Chrome/Android integration, I think Rubin should get a lot of credit for getting Android to the point where it's even worth integrating with. A bunch of competitors tried and failed; I'm glad that there's more than just Apple available in the mobile OS market.

"That could be an indication that building a viable mobile phone OS is really, really hard."

It is an indication that giving away a viable mobile OS is really, really hard. Google was able to pull it off because it is tied to their cash cow.

Post reply on HN