On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Matt Fowles <[email protected]> wrote: > Eugene~ > That is also on my list of things to do. As it stands, Janino rolls its own > bytecode classes (which I have found and fixed a few bugs in), but not > having the code at all would be even better. > Of course, if you wanted to beat me to it, I wouldn't stop you ;-) > Matt > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Kuleshov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> It would be neat if Janino used ASM's backend for bytecode >> generation. Then you could feed its output into the class >> transformations or use Janino's Java syntax tree object model to >> construct code and convert it into the bytecode after that.
Yeah, it seems like there's a coalescing of tools needed here. Janino to use ASM, and maybe something from Soot too provide an optimization phase in front or in back. Tobias (from Jython) also had started working on an optimizing SSA compiler for JVM, but I don't think he's had a chance to return to that work. So once again, we're all rolling our own pieces when we could be collaborating. Stop the madness! - Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" 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/jvm-languages?hl=en.
