Which is why I stated multiple times that the vast majority apps are not compiled for ARM at all. They are just pure Java. So whether or not they go through Dalvik's JIT or ART's AOT makes no difference.

Except he has reality on his side. Microsoft already tried pushing "full Windows" tablets more than a decade ago. They were abysmal failures.

Nope, XP tablets were pretty horrendous to use.

This is hilarious considering everyone complained about how XP and its applications were "bloated" when it was the latest Windows release. Everyone was then pining for the "lightweight" Windows 2000.

And, yes, I did fail to mention that Lollipop's ART changes when things are compiled, but the end result is the same. Most apps do not use any native code so the architecture change won't have any effect.

Okay, but Lollipop is only on a small minority of phones. Either way, my point still stands. Most apps are written in Java and are architecture-independent and are compiled locally so the change from ARM to x86 won't effect most apps.

You must not have been around in the early days if you think AC shitposting is a new thing. The current level is far less than it used to be in the early days of constant GNAA and Goatse ASCII posts.

Most apps aren't geared towards any processor. Most of them are just written in plain Java and are JIT-compiled when run. So for those apps this will work perfectly fine. I believe Intel had some sort of binary translation to handle things like games where there is native code being used.

No, most of the apps are JIT compiled in the VM when run.

And yet you claim above that people are going to buy this over the countless number of cheaper phones? Care to share what your smoking?

It will have quite a hard doing what you claim when only a fraction of a fraction of 1% of phone buyers will ever hear of its existence.

Oh and to add, it's quite interesting that you ignored the "ICE" label that reports over 200 issues reporting internal compiler errors.

Because there are a ton of bugs. Trying to claim there is only 19 bugs out of 100s of issues is complete silliness.

Never claimed smart pointers solve all problems because that would be ridiculous. If you have cases that a smart pointer doesn't solve then clearly you would need to use the correct solution. But for the vast majority of cases that people use raw pointers for, they can be substituted with something safer and remove a whole host of potential bugs from their code.

As they are in C++. They are also compile-time checked to make sure they have been initialized. It's one of the whole reasons that references exist in C++ and should be used in place of pointers whenever possible.