I think putting more effort into Avian would probably be time better spent. Their static code-gen is lacking (it currently just runs the JIT ahead of time, instead of taking more time with something like LLVM), but they've got a lot of things going for them including a superior GC.

I wrote most of the Avian VM, and I agree that the code generation is quite primitive compared to LLVM's. We've considered using LLVM as an alternative code generator, but hesitated partly because LLVM used to require a shadow stack to support accurate GC. I just checked they're latest docs[1], though, and it seems that there are other options now.

All in all, adding LLVM support to Avian would be challenging but doable. However, Avian's generated code is already fast enough for most purposes, and it's not too hard to fall back to a bit of native code when you need maximum performance. My impression is that Java-on-iOS developers are less concerned about performance and more concerned with ease-of-use (e.g. tool integration) and convenient access to native APIs (e.g. Bro[2]). The RoboVM devs have apparently done a great job on both of those things.

I sympathize with Zechner and the other RoboVM devs. Development on Avian was originally funded by the company I was working at since it neatly addressed a problem we had: extending the lifetime of a large body of client-side Java code in a world that was/is increasingly unfriendly to client-side Java. Once it was good enough for that purpose, there was no business reason to continue investing in it besides bug fixes and maintenance, so we had to move on to other things.

I'd love to keep working on Avian full time and do cool stuff like an LLVM port or trace-based JIT compilation, but it's hard to justify when there are bills to pay. In my case, that means focusing primarily on other, income-producing projects. In RoboVM's case, it means trying a new approach to licensing to make development sustainable. I wish them luck with it.

[1] http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html [2] http://docs.robovm.com/advanced-topics/bro.html

I was wondering why no one mentioned Avian... I'm not a mobile developer so I wasn't sure, but I thought that it does the same thing essentially.

Avian is a fantastic platform and the maintainers are true friends of free software, even though their license is as permissive as you can possibly get.

https://github.com/ReadyTalk/avian

I doubt they're going to kill RoboVM. I don't think they care much about which language, just that you get your tools from them.

You seem to show contempt for people preferring open-source platforms. Well, I for one refuse to build on top of proprietary platforms, because there have been countless of examples of people getting burned. One way people get burned is because of bait and switch strategies, often employed by companies (especially startups) in order to attract interest and grow their product in popularity and then breaking their original promise. Or sometimes the company gets acquired in an acquihire and the product simply vanishes. One famous and recent example is FoundationDB - I'm pretty sure that the people that invested time and resources in FoundationDB are sorry for doing it.

I also don't see how the "freetards" killed RoboVM, but you seem to agree with me that RoboVM is dead.

WURFL did a very similar thing as well and it felt pretty disingenuous. Consequently we ended up switching to 51Degrees.

I personally don't like the OSS bait and switch tactic either. I prefer when companies offer other products, extensions, and/or services on top of the OSS core. If the company is still major contributors they still can shape the OSS core more suited to their proprietary offerings.

It just happens that I am from the generation that used to pay for software.

Also I kind of lost my FOSS enthusiasm, after learning the hard way if software is the product one sells, there is hardly any money to pay the bills, if the product isn't amendable to consulting and support.

We are far from the supermarket taking pull requests.

"we have seen competitors actively exploiting our good faith by using our open source code to compete with us directly in commercial products. On the flip side, we have received almost no meaningful contributions to our open source code."

The first indicates that they unwisely picked a license that allowed their competitors to do that and hoped they would share out of the kindness of their heart, the second indicates that they failed to find people interested in working for free on their commercial product.

Maybe if they had been less generous with their competitors they would have paid them money which could have made it possible to keep it free.

So no the "freetards" didn't kill it and by using such terms instead of logical arguments you reveal the quality of your intellect.

Your last sentence ruined the point you worked hard to build in the first three paragraphs.