Talk:Android Runtime

Puzzles And Dragons non-op with ART

As of this date, PAD cannot run under ART. It crashes immediately upon launching, never even gets to the splash screen. Dunno why (not) but... I'm also finding it impossible to go back to Kit Kat easily. JT (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! As the box on top says, "this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Android Runtime article." In other words, this talk page doesn't serve as a general-purpose forum, so questions/comments like this aren't supposed to be posted – neither they discuss improvements to the article, nor there's much chance you'll receive a helpful answer. Please try using some of the forums dedicated for that purpose. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Description of Dalvik

The description of Dalvik is really inaccurate/wrong. Dalvik cannot perform JIT at application launch, nor can it use the type of JIT the article links to (its T-JIT not plain JIT, they are different things in spite of the similar name!). I've tried to fix this by pointing to the correct concepts, but its been reverted. 18.62.17.224 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

From the edit comments: " Intepretation and comiplation do happen at launch time", actually Dalvik cannot perform compilation at launch time. Its a trace-based JIT, not a conventional JIT, it needs to build up a trace before anything can be compiled. See slide 83 onward: http://www.slideshare.net/jserv/understanding-the-dalvik-virtual-machine 18.62.17.224 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! It's not about performing the JIT at the first ever application launch, it's about JIT compiling parts of it every time an application runs, that's, when it's launched. Makes sense? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! The difference is that it cannot perform JIT when it launched. Instead it used trace-JIT AFTER the program has already been running for a period of time if it determines that its needed. Most code is never compiled. In some programs, no code at all will be compiled. Thats the difference between a trace system and a JIT system. Basically, you have to be running for a while before you can compile anything. Make sense? 18.62.17.224 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, as it's all about selecting the traces instead of JITting whole functions, for example. I'd say that we're pretty much on the same page there; please just let me "massage" the wording a bit, and I'm sure you'll be satisfied. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The first part of the new text is better, but the part about AOT reducing compilations isn't correct. Before you could have nothing compiled, now you have to have at least one, so for some programs ART will increase the number of compilations. Its also misleading, the point isn't to reduce time spent compiling (if it were, dalvik would be more efficient as its compiler is so trivial it barely does anything), its to generate better code. Also, could you clean your edits to Dalvik page? 18.62.17.224 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point, as Dalvik's JIT might be rarely triggered for certain types of applications (depending on how Dalvik sees their "traces" fit the JIT criteria), while ART's AOT mandates a complete compilation upon each application installation. Will get that covered as well. Regarding the Dalvik article, how about reaching a consensus here first, and we'll propagate the final version of wording there as well? That should be more efficient, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

bsp;(talk | contribs) 19:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Shit sorry, between when I refresh and when I posted your reply showed up. I gave rewording it a shot. FWIW, I think the dalvik article could use a lot of work (particularly the performance section which given no detail at all about why its performance is so poor relative to the JVM or even ART), but since its depreciated, I'm less motivated to go through and fix it up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.62.17.224 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it might even be better not to have that description until it's corrected. :) Ah, the Dalvik (software) article could use a lot of work, but just as you said there's less motivation for that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Got the content reworded; for reference, here's a diff with a revision as of 05:46, January 31, 2015. Please check it out and let's discuss any further improvements; hope you'll find this new wording rather acceptable. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and updated the Dalvik (software) article as well. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. Does Android Runtime decrease storage on 'KitKat devices'? Daren-001 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)