Firstly, sorry about the double post -- my mailer seems to have the idea
that _any_ e-mail adress _anywhere_ in the header should be replied to.
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Hans Aberg wrote:
> At 10:35 97/08/27, D. tweed wrote:
> >.. From what I've read, the JVM is designed to be a
> >platform independent machine code which:
> >
> >I) is quickly and efficiently mappable onto a variety of real
> >architectures.
> >II) is optimised for representing Java programs and in particular:
> >III)is designed to be quickly checkable for security concerns (during the
> >download phase). However this is based on the assumption that what is
> >being processed is Java; instructions which are safe in the context of
> >other languages may not qualify as safe for the JVM.
>
> First note that i above is ambiguous: An efficient mapping onto several
> real architectures need not be distributed, and the latter steals
> efficiency. Simon L Peyton Jones is working on "C--" bytecodes which are
> not distributed, but can be used on several platforms.
Yes. What I was trying to say is that it was sufficiently close that just-
in-time compilation becomes psychologically acceptable.
As to the point about C--, for what I've read I think that qualifies more
as an intermediate language (a la core or henk), not a compact byte-code.
Is this correct? Since were talking about the JVM we clearly want (at
least)
runable-as-applet capability. What I was asking is if the using the JVM
rather than a more general bytecode isn't like forcing everything to look
like a nail simply because the only tool you've got is a hammer.
Dave
