Walter Bright Wrote: > On 11/30/2011 12:56 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: > > Are you not being a bit simplistic here? > > > > There are several JVM implementations around not just one. > > It's not the implementation that's the problem, it's the *definition* of the > bytecode for the JVM.
To think, LLVM devs complain about LLVM IR being so low-level, and it would so nice to have something as high-level as Java bytecode, which is so sweet for optimizers and jit.
