Visual Studio

I own a Sony Ericsson and the best games are the Java Games. I have seen the Windows Mobile phones and they look cool, but comparable to Symbian. But the fact is by now, most customers of mobile phones are those who have already used them and have certain expectations of them -one of them being games. I was realy sad when I didnt have snakes on my sony Ericsson (nokia did). But then the fact remains I can actually create the game and download it to my mobile phone (for free). So, unless Microsoft is going to create something to rival the power of independence and creativity that Java thrusts upon developers, I dont think J#.NET is going to create any impact.

divya, I do not follow you.

Had your Smartphone supported .NET Compact Framewrok, you could still create a game in Java and load it to the phone.

The only change is that you will use a different compiler (J#.NET).

Isn't that the impact you were looking for ?

The vast majority of relevant games aren't being developed in J2ME today--they're being developed in native code and optimized on a per-device basis. J2ME was dealt a significant blow when Motorola pulled out of Symbian because it removed the last barrier for Nokia to put its full weight behind driving the native Series60 platform. Although Nokia still paying lip service to the J2ME community, any serious game developer will tell you that native code is the key to Nokia's games market. This leaves J2ME as the only player in the "cross-platform application" market. While this seems like a great place to be, application vendors will tell you that device platforms are so fragmented--even within the same vendor--that they must pick a single device or two to optimize their games for, otherwise the support and code maintenance cost grows drastically. Other folks will say that J2ME is ideal for the corporate development market, but the reality is that it isn't robust enough for heavy duty apps, whereas it's too much work for lightweight apps in contrast to what you can do with the device browser using something like ASP.NET mobile controls.

So this brings us back to game development for Microsoft's Windows Mobile platform, where you have two options: managed and native. While the managed platform is awesome for productivity and data-driven apps, sophisticated games tend to require as much performance as the device will give, which makes native a better fit. As such, developers will find that the native support in Whidbey delivers much better game development support than J2ME. In addition, the improved native support makes it much easier to port desktop games to the device, which is a more significant advantage than J# would bring, even if the CLDC/MIDP object and application model were cloned. It is true that there is no "recompile" option for J2ME apps when porting to the .NET Compact Framework, but the same is true when building for any other device on the market (for anything beyond the most simple apps).

If all else fails, you can get a kVM from a 3rd party vendor.

yup all i need is a different compiler. But I dont have the source of the games all the time. Moreover, isnt J3.NET compiler a paid for compiler unlike the java?

oops i have made an ass of myself.. J# seems great upon reflection :). but it seems like you are supporting MIDP (games==MIDP). Its kinda not clear from the website what APIs are exactly being supported.

But isnt it time to support the CDC (Personal Profile instead of MIDP).? with the rampant increase in density afforded by Nokia 6600/iPod etc. shouldnt there be support for more powerful games (which require a large memory footprint)?

Ed, I do agree with you. J2mE in itself is too fragmented and not really as "cross platform" as it seems to be. But if they fiddle with the native/managed code and break it and let them come back to you with a problem which you cant identify but is caused by the native code used in the game application., then that will be a bigger problem. J2mE causes no such problems and is very safe that way and an excellent idea for both developers and OS producers.

Actually, I consider Moto's pulling out of Symbian a major good news for J2ME -- Moto to J2ME is IBM to J2EE. On the other hand, I do not think today's J# will help mobile phone developers. Check out my thoughts here:

http://www.enterprisej2me.com/blog/ms/?postid=73

cheers
Michael

I am a die-hard Microsoft application developer, but when Microsoft refuses to make their stuff work on cross-platform, I am always tempted to switch all my efforts to Java. For example, the only way that I can create an application for both palm and pocket pc, I have to go to Java (J2ME). I am tired of that... maybe I will switch all my development over.

Ed,

The mobile market has both high-end and low-end phones. All of them need games. I think that Java will be dominant in most phones (especially lower end phones). As the specifications will evolve to include more phone functionality Java will even be more attractive.

In my view J2ME is a truly disruptive technology, in the sense it provides an API that is not device or operating system specific. As its performance will get better and API will cover more functionalities, it will gain more and more share (and not just games).

Do not forget that the phone manufacturers are getting weaker. Carriers can develop their own branded phones with cheaper design houses in Korea and China. Windows or Symbian are quite expensive, and Linux+Java can be a low-cost alternative.

Michael,

I've read your post but you did not refer to the original thought:
What would happen if Microsoft would support J2ME compatability in J#? Will it help its smartphones ?

Itai

I agree, this is a must have! Source level compatibility for Sun's MIDP 1.0 and 2.0 J2ME implementations would be fantastic. The delima for Microsoft is that this would allow non SmartPhone J2ME developmnet though Microsoft's Visual Studio.NET IDE.

If you look at the J# has been implemented you'll notice it's a one way street. In order to leverage VS.NET you really can't write Java code in J# and expect it to run anywhere other than on top of the .NET Framework. This isn't by design behavior, however why should Microsoft go out of their way to aid non-Microsoft developers. This is the delima. J# is designed to make it easy for Java2 developers to come over to .NET, beyond that it doesn't have a purpose (although it could).

There is room for a third-party, or even a group of developers to join togeather and create a virtual J2ME on top of the current J# implementation.

I hope J# doesn`t ends up like VisualJava

I think that a J# for .NET CF would be quite a good idea. I am a J2ME developer and I've found that the main problem with MIDP is that you have to do an individual port for each device - you cannot assume your code will run on any phone. So if you were to do one, please make sure it actually works (unlike most of the MIDP implementations I've come across)!

Someone said 'oh just get a kvm', but what about the cost? Most J2ME developers are on a razor thin margin anyway, they can't afford to charge Windows Mobile customers the extra it would cost.

I personally now don't think there is any future in MIDP, except for very simple games - there just aren't enough people willing to pay any reasonable amount of money for applications. On top of that it's totally crippled in terms of functionality and performance. Even low-end phones have more power than a typical Windows 3.1 era PC did, but yet they have this API you would expect on a PIC. No access to microphone or speaker, no access to camera (ok, I know there's a JSR for this), no proper access to address book, no access to T9 for user-drawn input forms, very poor networking, non-existant exception handling, poor application access from handset, slow application startup - the list goes on.

For a short term gain in software base Microsoft could gain quite a lot from a J#/MIDP port, but it would be simpler to just provide a free KVM! I know that that is not going to happen because of politics, but it's a real shame. In the absense of that a _robust_ port would be great - pay parituclar attention to the garbage collection, networking and image manipulation API's, support as many of the optional bit's as possible and developers will _love_ you.

Maybe I'm getting old.... I just don't understand this "game on a phone" hype.

I need my Windows Powered Smartphone (Orange SPV e200) to make phone calls, send a SMS (twice a month) and check my calender on the go.

But games? Pleeeze.
Toys to the boys.

If Microsoft would like to attract more game developers, making the entry easier would be a good start.

For instance, making Visual C++ embedded available for free was a great start. However, many hardcore Java developers like myself will be reluctant of going back to C++ for obvious reasons.

I was considering doing embedded development in C# on the side. C# seems to be a decent language and very easy to learn if you already know Java. Visual C# .NET 2003 Standard is available for 100 bucks - that's not free, but still cheap enough for not being a major showstopper.

Unfortunately, Microsoft cripples its standard edition significantly by taking all the embedded support out. If you want to develop C# for smart devices, you have to puchase Visual Studio Professional for more than a THOUSAND. Yes, you are getting a lot of software for your money, but none of these products are of any use for me. I do not care about doing a part of my development in VB or using SQL Server - I just want to be able to write C# games for my PDA :-(

So, I have the choice between spending thousand dollars for embedded development on the Microsoft platform or use Sun's tools for free. What do you think my choice will be? ;-)

Jens: Many of us have been nagging MS for some time to add mobile device development support to the entry-level versions of Visual Studio.NET....using current Visual Studio 2005 terminology that would mean an Express version.
Let's hope the message gets through (I believe a lot of the problem is the fantasy that mobile development is an "Enterprise" activity. Yeah, right). I think the v 2.0 version of the .NET Framework SDK will support mobile development, and that's free, but I don't see too many people queuing up for that option.

I think there's more work involved in implementing J# on the Compact Framework than many people assume, since it also presumably involves creating a set of J2ME-mimicking libraries for J#...and then which profiles do you support?
And last but not least: Let's not forget that J# is *not* Java - you won't be able to run Java bytecode against the Compact Framework, so at best what you are getting for your trouble is the equivalent of the portability of old C programs: Write once, recompile everywhere.

Logically the best solution for people who want to deploy Java games on the Smartphone 2003 platform (or Pocket PC for that matter) is a Java runtime, if one happens to be provided for that device...if you want it to run on the Compact Framework, just write it in C# or VB.NET (and be glad that you're not dealing with the joy of debugging cross-patform applications).

I'm not at all sure this will work. To be honest, a Java VM that's compatible with the big players in the cell phone market makes more sense and should be easier to do..

What *I'd* like to see is the reverse - .NET CF made available on other platforms. Ditto for .NET in general. Then I could write games and apps in .NET and not have to deal with all the myriad variations.

Even though I'm a .NET fanatic, I just got a Sony Ericsson T610 and I want to write applets for it - and that means I have to get back into Java (bleah). I'd really prefer doing it in .NET.

I also have friends on Macs and I can't convince them how easy it is to write great apps in .NET, especially with VS.NET 2003 (and even moreso with 2005), but if I could write them on Windows and deploy to MacOS X... that would wow them.

But....

No can do.

Jens, actually, the C# Standard edition can be used nicely to write embedded software. The only thing missing is the New Project wizard for the embedded stuff, so you have to create your projects by hand, but you can target whatever you want (yes, even device drivers). The compiler is the same as the Pro version, and the .NET CF is a free download.

no its not really the point. the point is that while most vendors are trying to standard around j2me microsoft is again in a world of its own. it will lose if it cant support my cool apps and games. its sad but true, to send pictures of you bum is quickly becoming a popular pasttime and selling handsets - people who get pda smartphones would probably buy an ipod if it could make telefone calls.

micro$oft give some reason about compact .net framework and capital stuff but the real question is hey why cant i install the midlet/game/app this is a feature deficiency - why did i buy this fone/pda anyway - oh outlook

I suggest backing up CrossFire [1] from AppForge or buying the company and making the product freely available for developers. It sounds like officially backing up Mono (not quite the same in terms of platform) so I believe that it will definately make more developers to start developing with VS.NET. The other suggestion is to make a low-cost Express version for developing CF apps.

I suggest backing up CrossFire [1] from AppForge or buying the company and making the product freely available for developers. It sounds like officially backing up Mono (not quite the same in terms of platform) so I believe that it will definately make more developers to start developing with VS.NET. The other suggestion is to make a low-cost Express version for developing CF apps.

I am a .net fanatic and would like to see .Net Compact Framework supported on most moblie devices. Its so cool to develop apps in C# and VB.NET. The J2ME development environment looks very premitive to me.

.Net is the way forward!!!

Will's Blog - My.Thoughts == My.World » NullPointerException on phone?

TomTom has released firmware version 6. 11 for all GO 510 and 910 owners. However, the update is only available via the TomTom HOME desktop application. When you cradle a 510 or 910 and launch the HOME application, the update will automatically be downloaded