Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > ... > Yes, I've started to lean toward the notion that designing a > meta-bytecode layer that's "JVM bytecode ++" would be a more realistic > target for many language developers to work toward than what the DLR > folks have been aiming for. Put simply, I still believe that coming up > with an "abstract semantic tree" that would ever be general enough to > support "all" dynamic languages is impossible without making it so > finely-chopped and disconnected that it's impossible to realistically > optimize. But I digress. > > I'm getting more to the point where just emitting bytecode is like a > second language. I've debated writing portions of JRuby in a Ruby-based > bytecode DSL of mine, just so I'd have that bare-metal control over it > without all the JVM noise: > ...
While I still think AOP is a better approach for this problem, your observation prompts me to point out that llava is a dandy JVM bytecode language that has been around for a while. http://llava.org/ And of course Kawa's gnu.bytecode has been around forever and has spiffy higher level stuff that uses it (not just Scheme but also a multilingual abstract layer). Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
