Wait Just a Rootin Tootin Minute.
So you'll be able to zoom in infinitely on the crappy unfocused pics you took on your camera phone in the pub last night, but not be able to access more useful features like a calendar?
Way to go.
Microsoft has scheduled the first quarter of 2009 for the first code drop of Silverlight for mobile devices. And while Silverlight for mobile will be missing some elements in the desktop that have people excited, Microsoft's working to pack in other features increasingly considered standard in the demanding world of mobile …
I'm just about fed up of the misuse of the term and mischaracterisation of various languages in this way. If this is the only argument that people in their "nyah nyah my language is better than yours because" playground games have, then they really need to grow up.
Yes, I know why people say this. Yes it's off-topic. Cue the abusers.
Has not happened because SUN did want it to happen. Want to have your runtime built in in a mobile? Ask the manufacturer. Of course, if the phone has any special features that make it special, different or simply better than the competition, the phone manufacturer will want you to have an API to take advantage of them. If not, you can take your runtime elsewhere, thank you.
In as much as MS is used to blackmail hardware manufacturers, this will not work with the mobile phone ones. They've learned the lesson from PC/PDAs, and know for sure that if they buy into the MS runtime all their phones will look and behave the same in the long term, andit will be MS who will determine the specs of the new generation phones.
Sorry, Microsoft, unless you make it both free (no fees) and open (source code available, anyone can modify it) no mobile manufacturer is going to take you seriously.
Some good points, but I disagree about needing it to be open-source. Microsoft's strengths lie in having an open _platform_ (ie making it easy for people to use and add stuff on*) which is all that's necessary.
If nokia, for example want an API for nokia-specific stuff, they should be able to do that without needing source code access.
* if you think about it, a lot of improvements MS has made recently involve it taking back control of things rather than letting third-party programs alter them if they want to.
Please please let Silverlight and mobile Flash die. Please let us just use open standards for the mobile web. We've only just fought clear of Microsoft's embrace extend smother hijacking of Web 1.0 on the desktop.
For now it looks like being Apple and Google pursuing open standards versus Microsoft and Adobe rebuilding the bad old days in the mobile space.
I was not claiming that Apple does not mainly offer its own software in proprietary form, but regretting the apparent hope of Adobe and Microsoft to balkanise and pollute the intrinsically open _web_ with Flash and Silverlight alternatives to standards compliant web 2.0. Apple does not attempt to interfere with the use of open standards by corrupting them or supplanting them. They don't have Microsoft's market share or Adobe's hold over content creation to be able to do that.
Apple's strategy for survival as a minority platform includes strongly resisting the encroaching of proprietary cross-platform infrastructure attempting to replace open standards. For example by compelling iPhone web apps not to use Flash, and presumably, when the time comes, not to use SIlverlight.
Is correct that Silverlight for Mobile does not support the DLR today, since the Reflection.Emit namespace is not in the .NET Compact Framework. However, I'm making changes to the Silverlight integration for IronRuby and IronPython to let them run in interpreted-mode, which will not depend on Reflection.Emit. Once that happens then applications that run in interpreted mode can run on Silverlight Mobile. This will be in the next release on http://codeplex.com/sdlsdk.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021