On Aug 28, 4:38 am, "Ben Loud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's been a lot of buzz about TraceMonkey recently, and alot of people > promoting it by arguing that HotSpot is 'too heavyweight' and because > JavaScript is dynamic, it wouldnt do as good of a job as a 'specially > designed' JIT (seehttp://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/for some amusing > comments, including *"We just applied the most relevant research (Andreas's) > to JavaScript. Sun would not and will not do that, because JS is not Java." > *Seems Mr Eich is not aware of John's work!*). *
I haven't seen John in 12 years; sorry for not keeping up. But seriously, I was replying to someone on that blog whose behavior quickly identified him as a troll, yet who seemed at first to fault us on technical grounds for not using HotSpot in Firefox(!). Let's get real. Even with John's work, we're not able to switch to such a VM. We need a very small JIT, specialized to JS as source language, and that avoids method inlining and similar code bloat. And it has to compete with the likes of V8, which is not easy (we're the only browser not apparently caught flat-footed on this particular front). I'm glad the JVM is getting better dynamic and functional programming language support. But a JVM is simply not an alternative to the built- in browser VMs out now or to be released soon. Even Tamarin, in many ways a Java-1-like VM, is not competitive at untyped JS, which is the only kind of JS that there is on the Web. /be --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
