Re: [Waba-spec] About the "javalike" classes

[Guilherme H. <gu...@us...>]

>
> >     My opinion regarding this is: keep waba small as possible.
> > Implementing
> > too much classes wont make it powerful. People like Waba bc it is small
> > and
> > powerful.
>
> My opinion on this is: Waba is too different from the Java standard.
> It's making porting difficult.  SuperWaba is pushing us even further in
> this direction.  I think that if we're trying to establish a good
> standard set of classes, we should bite the bullet and implement a good
> set of basic classes rather than try to modify the noncompatible ones we
> presently have.  We only have to do this once.

     In fact SW did not started that nightmare, i'm just continuing in the
same path, exactly to make SW fully back compatible with Waba.

>
> That being said, I've worked hard to make these classes as
> backward-compatible as possible.  In fact, they should be implementable
> without *any* modifications to existing applications.

        Im sure you did a good job.

       The basic point of Waba and SuperWaba is a user question:

"Hi,

I've been doing a skunkworks project on the feasibility of Java
development on PDA platforms. So far in terms of getting a straight
forward app up an running, SuperWaba wins in every way I care about.

As far as I can tell, all the big commercial players are doing
heavyweight "compliant" implementations of full JVMs on PDAs and/or MIDP
with proprietary GUIs for PDA's. I'm interested in knowing if SuperWaba
is on a different trajectory and if so, where it's headed?

So, my questions:

1. Given infinite resources and a fair wind, what [might/will/should]
SuperWaba be in a years time?

2. Is the intention to ultimately provide a complete cleanroom
implementation of all concievable Java classes or to specifically avoid
this in order to remain small and fast?

Any enlightenment or opinion welcome.

--
Paul Sidnell
Electric Pocket
http://electricpocket.com

"
        Make your own conclusions...

        guich