Why are you too tainted?
geir
On Nov 2, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Craig Blake wrote:
Some of us are still hoping for a mostly Java based
implementation. While I am apparently too "tainted" to contribute
much, it will make it a lot more fun to play around with.
Craig
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Robin Garner wrote:
Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
AFAIK IKVM, sablevm and jamvm all run on portable devices.
Developing a j2me jvm is not as easier as it seens, first, the
footprint and execution performance must be really optimized, so
expect a LOT of assembly coding.
Back to the language wars again :) This does not necessarily
follow.
Try googling for the 'squawk' VM - they had a poster at OOPSLA
last
week. This is a java-in-java virtual machine targetted at
embedded
devices. The core VM runs in 80KB of memory. Device drivers
are all
written in Java.
Robin,
With a java-in-java VM even if you don't write directly in
assembly
you still need to generate machine code with java anyway, and that
will look a lot like asm (JikesRVM baseline JITer for example).
With
C, for example, you can get away using just an interpreter.
My mistake, obviously. When you said "performance must be really
optimized, so expect a LOT of assembly coding", I assumed you
were saying
that large chunks of the VM would need to be written in
assembler in order
to get adequate performance.
So what _was_ the point you were making ?
cheers
I was just trying to say that a decent j2me VM is not as simple as
David suggested. Not that C or Java would be more suited to
implement
it. As a matter of fact, I think that java-in-java VMs can be as
good
as C/C++ based JVMs or better.
But one thing is hard to deny, a simple JVM, like bootJVM, is a lot
easier to write in C than in java (not using an AOT compiler). And
that was my point, C/C++ sounds to be the easy path to start with.
Actually my colleagues at ANU and I were remarking last week that
all the recent discussion on the Harmony list (configure scripts,
packed structs etc etc) were close to being proof that Java was
the easier way to go.
Another data point (FWIW) - joeq, excluding the compiler and the
class library interface comes in at ~39,000 lines of code.
bootJVM is already over 50,000. I know that KLOC is a pretty
bogus measure of complexity, but it certainly says _something_.
And Joeq is a fully functioning VM.
cheers
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
