won't that all be a little complicated? The JVM runs bytecode, not Java itself. Isn't there an equivalent for .Net too? I don't know about languages such as Smalltalk, but I think their standard is the language itself, it's up to the interpreter to deal with it from there. I suspect will suggest we need a
Given the gulf between the structures of these languages and bytecode systems, is this thread suggesting a completely generic VM and having some kinda translator to move from bytecodes to Harmony-codes? On 5/13/05, 王在祥 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agree. > > 2005/5/12, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 王在祥 wrote: > > > Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is > > > possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET, > > Haskell, > > > Smalltalk etc. > > > > > > the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management, > > multi > > > thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it > > can > > > define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode > > can > > > be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed. > > > > First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see > > what happens after we reach that goal. > > > > -- > > Stefano. > > > > >
