On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Who exactly wants a vm to host other vms? I don't think anyone here has > mentioned any requirement or wish. > > That's your own formulation, I was talking about pluggable bridges/ > adaptors on top of the VM's, much as how you can also use Swing from > SWT. > > In other words emulation, as the hosted vms can never ALL be native. I believe you are misusing the terms bridging and adaptors when discussing hosting a vm. When one has to handle each and every bytecode individually this can only be termed emulation or perhaps some sort of cross compilation. An adaptor or bridge implies that a bridge is joining something big over there to something big over here - the entire system can be composed of bridges. Bridges exist to join things not to exist for themselves. Even Venice, Amsterdam or the other great cities of the world on top of rivers and water are more something else even if they have lots of bridges. > > Java was slow in 95 because the hardware was nit ready and no jit > existed. Everybody knew they would eventually appear and betting on such an > outcome was logical. > > That's the same as me arguing "Unified VM's are slow in 2010, the > hardware is not yet ready. Everybody knows para-virtualization is on > the rise everywhere in the stack so such an outcome is logical.". > > So because CPUs are fast enough today we need to invent something to waste cpu cycles again..? Have you got Intel shares ? > > This sort of duplication is nonsense and something I could not personally > understand about harmony. > > Wow, that's a change of topic. I think I will just skip this one and > give you a link to wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Open_standard]. > > > So who exact is going to invent this new vm platform? If Google one if > the worlds largest companies didn't start from scratch but built android > leveraging java, who would ? > > But they DID build one from scratch, but Google is pragmatic and they > obviously wanted to draw in the 10.000.000 existing Java developers. > My point is that we do not have one universal standardized VM that > everyone agrees to support (just as we don't have one universal > language everyone agrees on using), but by inserting a compatibility > layer we could get there, with the added benefit of being able to swap > VM's. > > > If Google didnt want to invest the time to support all the features of java such as loading class files directly, who else is going to get this done ? > > Have you tried asm/javassist in android ??? > > I know where you are going, and while personally I consider AOP to be > a hack around missing language features, I can't see any inherent > problem with letting bytecode be manipulated provided there is indeed > an intelligent bridge sitting in between. > > I never said i liked or hated AOP and its friend, all i said was in order to host another system everything has to be supported. You cant pick what you like - this is not kindergarten where it doesnt matter. - Given significant parts of Dotnet are worthless without COM, how are you going to address the lack of COM and all the other windows platform specifics ? If you just ignore them you end up with Mono, which while sounding cool has not reached the dizzying heights and ubiquity of java. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
