What Language Do You Use?

[Andy Sjostrom]

While on the subject of platforms and languages. I have wondered a long, long time what language is the most commonly used when developing Pocket PC software. I am also really interested in knowing what <a href="http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/fittond/ppcjava.html">Pocket PC Java options</a> out there that is used! Speak up, please!

[antoni]

Without eVC++ programming a decent Pocket PC application is almost impossible. I haven't tested VB .Net but I can confirm eVB is totally useless!

So if anyone is planning to create a Pocket PC application I'd recommend eVC++ or J2ME (just made a few tests but its way more powerful than eVB).

Cheers!

[Peter Foot]

Without eVC++ programming a decent Pocket PC application is almost impossible. I haven't tested VB .Net but I can confirm eVB is totally useless!

VB.NET and C# are massively more powerful than eVB. There are still a few areas where they cannot compete with good old C++ though...

[Andy Sjostrom]

... and who is doing any Java development? Using what VM?

[antoni]

You could use the SuperWaba Java VM.

http://www.pdastreet.com/software/pdas/SuperWaba-Java-VM-2002-8-13-pdastreet-pdas.html

[Andy Sjostrom]

You could use the SuperWaba Java VM.

http://www.pdastreet.com/software/pdas/SuperWaba-Java-VM-2002-8-13-pdastreet-pdas.html


Have you used it?

[antoni]

No I didn't test SuperWaba.

I did play with Jeode, but I'm not a Java guy, I only program with C++.

But I like the idea that there are more programming languages for Pocket PC.

[Registered]

eVC++ is the way to go. Having said that, I'm quite fond of C# on the CF in Visual Studio 2003. If only all Pocket PC's had the .netCF in ROM. :wink:

[Andy Sjostrom]

eVC++ is the way to go. Having said that, I'm quite fond of C# on the CF in Visual Studio 2003. If only all Pocket PC's had the .netCF in ROM. :wink:

:wink:

[MBaas]

Well guys, real geeks use APL! (see http://www.dyadic.com/ )

[Jimmy Dodd]

I use eVC++ for almost everything, but have started using a little C# with .NET lately.

I've played with Java a little, and even ran Python for a little while.

[EvilOne]

eVC++ is definietly the way to go when developing. C# is nice also, hopefully when the next generation of PDAs come out the .Net CF will be loaded in ROM so the space is not lost to all the supporting files that are needed for it (~2MB currently)

[Scott R]

I just posted this in the .NET vs Java thread, but it's probably better asked here:
1) Does the CF (and whatever else you need to code Pocket PC apps) come in the box with VS.NET now?
2) How big is the runtime? Do any of the new PPC 2002 devices come with the runtime out of the box?
3) How is performance compared to, say, embedded Visual C (or whatever it's called)?

It looks like someone here already answered #2 (about 2MB).

Here's another question:
4) For those that have used both eVC and .NET (whether C# or VB, I don't care), what are the advantages/disadvantages of eVC vs .NET? Obviously, there's the runtime issue. What about performance and RAD capabilities (e.g. - ease of creating menus, ease of coding for SIP being visible and hidden, etc.)?

I'm going to VB.NET training next week (I already program in VB6) and am looking forward to trying things out.

Scott

[EvilOne]

1) Does the CF (and whatever else you need to code Pocket PC apps) come in the box with VS.NET now?


To code .Net CF you will need to get Visual Studio .Net 2003. This will come with the SDKs necessary to do this for the PDA. VS .Net 2003 is not due for release until 24 April 2003 :?: It is currently in FINAL BETA and available if you have an MSDN subscription.


3) How is performance compared to, say, embedded Visual C (or whatever it's called)?


Umm, C# is just like Java. The code written is translated into an intermidiate language and then when it is run it is compiled. So there is a noticeable lag in start up the first time the app starts. Even a simple Hello World with a close button had a very noticeable delay on startup on my HP 568.


Here's another question:
4) For those that have used both eVC and .NET (whether C# or VB, I don't care), what are the advantages/disadvantages of eVC vs .NET? Obviously, there's the runtime issue. What about performance and RAD capabilities (e.g. - ease of creating menus, ease of coding for SIP being visible and hidden, etc.)?


There are a lot of articles here that can answer this question and possibly more.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncenet/html/rtnetdesigning.asp

I hope I answered your questions clearly enuff :!:

[Scott R]

Thank you EvilOne (that sounds strange).

Also, Andy, thank you for your comments in that other thread. I figured it was better to continue the discussion here.

Does anyone know of VS.NET 2003 is going to be a free upgrade to existing owners of VS.NET? The reason I ask is because I don't own VS.NET yet and am not sure if I should hold off until April.

Thanks,

Scott

[EvilOne]

Does anyone know of VS.NET 2003 is going to be a free upgrade to existing owners of VS.NET? The reason I ask is because I don't own VS.NET yet and am not sure if I should hold off until April.


I really doubt it will be a free upgrade for existing VS .Net users. I recall some post somewhere that the upgrade from VS .Net is suppose to be $29. But I can not find the post right now. Sorry. :(

[jim s]

I prefer to do my programming on my device, so I use NS Basic.

[sualeh]

I have been using an early release beta of PersonalJava (October 2001) - that's how early :wink: - it works fine for me though - I did not have to re-compile any of my bytecode, though adittedly, I used JDK 1.1.8. I am waiting for a good free JVM for the Pocket PC, though, hopefully one that fits the new Personal Basis Profile.

[Tim Allen]

I have just started getting into C# on the device after playing with it on the desktop for some time. Not having come from eVC/eVB I'm also keen to find out whether they'll be a low cost route for .NET device development - if not then I'll certainly be investigating the Java options.

The main problem I see with the Compact Framework is simply that it won't let you do enough, due to the limitations of having to strip down the full .NET Framework to fit on a device. Hopefully future releases will add more back in, especially if the basic RAM on a Pocket PC is increased - why doesn't anyone produce one with 128 Mb as standard yet?

[tonyv]

I went looking just the other day to see what it would cost me to move to .NET for CE. It looks like it is going to be at least a thousand bucks!?!?!?! COuld that possibly be right? We got embedded Visual studio 3.0 for FREE (and all of you are getting lots of cool apps because of this!). There's no way I can afford .NET. I just don't understand why Microsoft feels they need to profit from development tools -- they get all the bucks they need from selling the OS. Screwing your developers just seems like biting the hand that feeds you.....

End of rant.

[gwinter]

I went looking just the other day to see what it would cost me to move to .NET for CE. It looks like it is going to be at least a thousand bucks!?!?!?! COuld that possibly be right? We got embedded Visual studio 3.0 for FREE (and all of you are getting lots of cool apps because of this!). There's no way I can afford .NET. I just don't understand why Microsoft feels they need to profit from development tools -- they get all the bucks they need from selling the OS. Screwing your developers just seems like biting the hand that feeds you.....

End of rant.

I think this has been clear for some time already. It was probably early last year when someone... Andy or some other developer has said that the "shock" is that next generation development tool will no longer be free. Didn't pay much attention to it back then. I guess the reality is starting to sink in... :(

[Peter Foot]

The main problem I see with the Compact Framework is simply that it won't let you do enough, due to the limitations of having to strip down the full .NET Framework to fit on a device. Hopefully future releases will add more back in, especially if the basic RAM on a Pocket PC is increased - why doesn't anyone produce one with 128 Mb as standard yet?

This is to a certain extent true however there is quite good (not perfect) support for calling native methods. Therefore there is already a lot of code available to add in extra functionality - see www.innovativedss.com/forums/ for example. I'm sure that future versions will further extend the functionality but I think that this version is a pretty good starting point...

[Tim Allen]

The main problem I see with the Compact Framework is simply that it won't let you do enough, due to the limitations of having to strip down the full .NET Framework to fit on a device. Hopefully future releases will add more back in, especially if the basic RAM on a Pocket PC is increased - why doesn't anyone produce one with 128 Mb as standard yet?

This is to a certain extent true however there is quite good (not perfect) support for calling native methods. Therefore there is already a lot of code available to add in extra functionality - see www.innovativedss.com/forums/ for example. I'm sure that future versions will further extend the functionality but I think that this version is a pretty good starting point...

The fact that so much needs to be added via native code seems to indicate it doesn't really do everything you need :wink:. Personally I haven't used it enough to really find out the limitations, but have been frustrated a couple of times already. I guess you get spoiled using the full desktop framework; clearer documentation on the differences will help. However I totally agree that this version is an excellent start - pretty impressive that they managed to cram in what they have so far.

[EvilOne]

I think this has been clear for some time already. It was probably early last year when someone... Andy or some other developer has said that the "shock" is that next generation development tool will no longer be free. Didn't pay much attention to it back then. I guess the reality is starting to sink in... :(

Yeah if you want to use C# or VB.Net it will cost ya. But if you wanna stick with C/C++ eVC++ 4 will, I think, still be free for download. It is basically eVC++ 3 geared for the next generation PDA though.

[axim4me]

So I am trying to use the Superwaba Java Virtual Machine, but am having problems! When I try to run the .exe, I get an error that it is a valid 32 application. I am trying to run this on the Dell with an Xscale processor. Hopefully somebody can help!!

[topps]

I prefer to do my programming on my device, so I use NS Basic.

How do you find the runtime speed? Does VBscript slow things down too much? Mind you, I'm not exactly finding that VB.Net is exactly burning up the track!