Lets get moving. Comments?
Respectfully, I think this would be a mistake. I think it would be a
major error to start coding a VM core until there was more clarity about
what we are doing and what the core would require.
but rather my understanding that we'll need a small C/C++ kernel to
host the modules, no matter how they are written, and this is a way
to get that going...
This is not the case Geir.
When a VM is built in Java, the only need for C/C++ is for direct
interaction with the OS (one modest file of C code with interfaces to
the most basic OS functionality), and for bootstrapping (another
OS-specific file of C code plus about a dozen of lines of assembler).
That's it. The kernel of the VM can be entirely written in Java.
Whether or not we chose to do that is another matter, but your comment
above is technically incorrect, and therefore should not be the basis on
which we start coding.
This misconception highlights why it is that I think we need a seeding
process to gain some collective understanding before we start cutting
code for a new VM core. This requires some patience but I think will
make the difference between us producing a) something that is free, runs
OK, and is portable, from b) something that leverages the outstanding
collective pool of ideas at the table (ovm, gcj, kaffe, joeq, jamvm, jc,
orp, mudgevm, jikesrvm, etc etc) to deliver what I think could be the
best performing, most exciting VM, free or non-free.
I am very excited about all of the technology that this project is
bringing out. I think JamVM looks outstanding, but I think it would be
a serious error to take it as the core for Harmony. It was not
*designed* with our goals in mind. We need to understand where the
value in JamVM (and all other candidates) is, and then maximize our
leverage on that in the Harmony VM, whether it be through an entire VM
(unlikely), components (I hope so), designs (I am sure), or mechanisms
(certainly).
I understand that it is important that we seize the enthusiasm of the
list and start working, but respectfully, I think that cutting code for
a VM kernel right now would be a bad mistake, one that might be
gratifying in the short term but that is likely to lay the wrong
foundation for what I think may become the most exciting VM project yet.
--Steve
