Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Android Ported To C# 351

New submitter Eirenarch writes "Xamarin has just announced that they got the Java part of Android ported to C# via machine translation. The resulting OS, called XobotOS, is available on Github. They claim some serious performance gains over Dalvik. For them, this is an experiment that they are not planning to focus on, but they will be using some of the technologies in Mono for Android."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Android Ported To C#

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Android (Score:5, Informative)

    by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @06:29PM (#39862481) Homepage

    1. The Microsoft patent grant for C# is more permissive than the patent grant for Java.
    2. Oracle is suing Google over Java right now..

  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @06:31PM (#39862495) Homepage Journal

    Android was ported to x86 a few versions ago.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @06:33PM (#39862509)

    Yes, you can:

    Heck, even Eclipse has an emulator that could do the trick for you.

  • by zill ( 1690130 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @06:35PM (#39862537)
    Yes, you can. There are two ways to go about it:

    Download the Android SDK [] which contains an Android emulator.

    If you have any virtualization software installed, grab an Android x86 ISO image [] and run it in a VM.

    The second method gets you higher performance (virtualization vs binary translation), but has major compatibility issues. Any app that contains ARM native code won't work in Android x86 unfortunately.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @07:01PM (#39862761)

    Microsoft clearly says it's pronounced C Sharp. []

    C# (pronounced "C sharp") is a programming language that is designed for building a variety of applications that run on the .NET Framework. C# is simple, powerful, type-safe, and object-oriented. The many innovations in C# enable rapid application development while retaining the expressiveness and elegance of C-style languages.


  • Re:Android (Score:4, Informative)

    by Heir Of The Mess ( 939658 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @09:08PM (#39863807)

    Java has something C# lacks: a good IDE. Java has eclipse.

    Wow, where did you get that opinion from? Using a beta version of VS2005? VS2001?. The team I'm in right now is coding Java for Android in NetBeans because Eclipse sucked hard. But coding in C# in Visual Studio 2008/2010 is way better, way more productive. Hell even coding Javascript / HTML in VS2010 is better than this.

  • Re:Android (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dcnjoe60 ( 682885 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @10:22PM (#39864257)

    IANAL but unless they did a clean room conversion to C#, then Oracle's patent, if valid, would still apply. In otherwords, if Android is found to infringe on Oracle's IP and they programmers examined the infringing code and converted it to C#, the the C# implimentation still infringes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @11:53PM (#39864737)

    That's Dalvik, NOT the JVM.

  • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @12:02AM (#39864793) Homepage

    That's Dalvik, NOT the JVM.

    Whoops, you are correct. Sorry about that.

    I wish I could go back and edit the post. Oh well.


  • Re:Android (Score:5, Informative)

    by flimflammer ( 956759 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @03:03AM (#39865443)

    The (irrevocable, legally binding) promise Microsoft made was not just related to C#, but the .NET framework. So long as it's implemented properly (eg. all elements Microsoft deems "required" for the implementation is implemented), Microsoft will not peruse any legal action on anyone using the technology. That includes the API. The reason Microsoft did this was so people would not be afraid to use it. They want people to use it.

    The two situations are not comparable at all. Microsoft would not sue over someone implementing the API.

  • Re:Android (Score:4, Informative)

    by benjymouse ( 756774 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @10:02AM (#39867469)

    Aaa.... No it's not. There is a defensive termination clause(I will be corrected if I'm wrong...) in Microsoft's grant, but not in Oracle's.

    There is a termination clause:

    If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you.

    I.e. you can sue Microsoft for infringement of your own patents by SQL Server or Windows, but if you sue claiming that one of the specifications/implementations covered under the open specification promise infringes your patents, Microsoft reserved their right to countersue you for infringement of the same specifications.

    This is a standard defensive mechanism. Sun/Oracle has one as well:

    b. With respect to any patent claims owned by Sun and covered by the license granted under subparagraph 2, whether or not their infringement can be avoided in a technically feasible manner when implementing the Specification, such license shall terminate with respect to such claims if You initiate a claim against Sun that it has, in the course of performing its responsibilities as the Specification Lead, induced any other entity to infringe Your patent rights.

    c. Also with respect to any patent claims owned by Sun and covered by the license granted under subparagraph 2 above, where the infringement of such claims can be avoided in a technically feasible manner when implementing the Specification such license, with respect to such claims, shall terminate if You initiate a claim against Sun that its making, having made, using, offering to sell, selling or importing a Compliant Implementation infringes Your patent rights.

    If you were to rely on these specifications for a product you are building, it actually benefits you that there is a defensive mechanism in there to deter against crippling lawsuits.

    So, not much difference. Standard defensive mechanism in the common interest of the users of the products.

"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone