@Jonathan said:
I'm afraid you've made it too easy to figure out your pseudonym.
And you assume my pseudonym is obviously female because...?
@Jonathan said:
I'm afraid you've made it too easy to figure out your pseudonym.
And you assume my pseudonym is obviously female because...?
@DaveK said:
Just for the record, are you referring to Resources.getStringArray() here?Yup. And the bug you linked to is approximately what was happening-- a crash after an error message about more than 512 reference table entries, only I found it can take a lot fewer than 512 strings in one array to produce it.
@PJH said:
I'll admit to being ignorant about the lifecycle of Android, but are they really expecting dev's to support 2.x through 4.x? Or are they going 'Firefox' with the versioning?
Given the general attitude of the Android documentation, I don't think they expect developers to expect any version more than a couple months old. However, I expect backwards compatibility within a reasonable timeframe, and 3.0 only came out this last year, and never seemed to have caught on the way it was supposed to. Heck, the Galaxy Tab I got this summer only runs 2.2.1.
Mildly interested in why, if you have a pseudo here, you decided to create yet another to post this. Unless the other was tied to othe crap...
It's tied to stories I'd like to allow to remain pseudonymous for personal reasons. No links.
(Quick edit: yes, it took me a moment to remember it's 2012 now. Welcome to Checkuary...)@blakeyrat said:
3) The app's freakin' FREE so who cares if he's pimping it? He's not profiting from it.
4) He's posted a genuine WTF and even put a funny subject line on the thread.
Thanks. To be fair to PJH, there is a lot of malware in the Android Market disguised as free apps. You'll just have to accept my assurances that I'm not an elite enough Android programmer yet to write competent malware. (Plus, you would think a competent malware author would know to disguise it as an app that looks interesting to more than just language geeks.)
And, um, it's awkward to be correcting someone who's rushing to my defense, but I'm afraid I'm not a "he".
@PJH said:
My Android phone is on version 4.0.3. I note that there are various 3.x major versions still around.
There are plenty 2.x around, in fact. Half the installs on the first app I ever put on the Android Market are on 2.x versions. The update that fixed this problem was only released this past February, so it seems a bit soon to cut out potential users just to avoid dealing with it.
Are you trying to make it backward compatible to the 'stone ages,' or (cynic) trying to promote your app on your first post?
I've posted here before, actually, but under an assumed identity. I saw an opportunity to provide some proof the story might be real, but it required me to either out my pseudonym or create an account for real me. If the URL gets deleted, I don't mind-- it's not like I expect a lot of readers here to be interested in actually using the program.
I've been teaching myself Android lately. I'm about 90% impressed by it, and 10% boggled by the random showstoppers I might trip over at any time. Here's one...
So I got an idea for a silly little free "word-of-the-day" calendar app (finished product here, for the curious). Now, Android has a handy feature where a bunch of static data-- say, a list of strings for words, pronunciations, and definitions-- can be set up in an XML file and packaged with your program. Having tested the interface with filler text generated inside the program, I then formatted up my real data, threw the full program into the emulator, aaaaand...
Normally, when an Android program crashes, you get a popup informing you of the fact before you're kicked back out to the home or applications screen. In this case, I didn't even get that-- just a quick flash of back screen and back out.
After a lot of searching around, I found the answer: If your imported array is larger than some magic number x, Android's Java VM crashes. There's no way around it other than to cut your array up into smaller pieces and load them separately. This is a statement I'd be perfectly willing to accept in the abstract, simply presuming that x is some very large number, but by my experience just now, x is somewhere below 366.
This bug was allegedly fixed in Android 2.3.3. In other words, it took them over three years to work out that "load an array of nontrivial size" was a needed enough feature to bother with.