On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 2:33 PM Siddharth Khattar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > So I was going through the crazy ideas list for LibreOffice at > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas . > Crazy Idea page was first created as a dump of some crazy ideas that the enthusiastic developers had after LibreOffice was forked (this is why many ideas are 10+ years old), but has since then evolved into a place where everyone (but the developers) write their crazy ideas in - so keep that in mind. Also they don't mean anything - probably none of them will ever be implemented. > When I came to the idea "AOT Compilation for Java Libraries used by > LibreOffice" , there was this line as the first disadvantage -> > "Feasibility: Is it even possible to use AOT compiled Java Libraries in a > C++ compiled executable? Couldn't find a definite answer. " > > What does this line mean? > Looks like the crazy idea is just by some user thinking aloud. Can't AOT compilation be used for all Java Libraries? > Who knows, probably it's possible with a lot of work but don't think anybody was looking into that. Also, does LibreOffice use Java Libraries to further compile their > functions into C++ executable? > No. > I don't understand what it meant to say at all to be honest. > You're free to ignore that - it's not like the crazy ideas page has any meaning. > Also, the last disadvantage -> "May reduce motivation to move from Java > entirely" > > Why does LibreOffice want to move on from Java? > We want to move away from Java for core stuff as it would require for every user to have a JVM installed (only Base currently requires a JVM). We also want to move away from Java during the building of LibreOffice, for example running tests written in Java, because C++ tests are easier for most to debug if something goes wrong (as most of core developers are C++ developers). But we don't want to get rid of Java as a language you can build LibreOffice extensions in. > Will it depend entirely on C++ instead then? > No, there is still Python that is used for some things (AFAIK) and StarBasic. > > Is this also a crazy/ambitious idea? > Not that crazy. > Is it somewhat related to the "Replace Mozilla Rhino with Mozilla's > SpiderMonkey or Google's V8" idea as it also wants to remove Java as a > dependency for executing JavaScript extensions? > Well not directly. Rhino JS support isn't the best or fastest, so replacing that with an up-to-date C++ compatible JS engine that is actually used in a browser would be much better. Also no need to have a JVM installed to run JS would make it a much more interesting language as an alternative scripting language for macros and extensions. > Or is that a completely seperate idea? > Yes.. and is just a crazy idea. > Thanks for reading/answering my long question! > Regards, Tomaž
