AFAIK, no.  The bytecode->IL is generated in advance one-time (think of this
as compiling).  At that point, it's like any other CLR managed language
including C# which is JIT'ed (i.e. Nothing new here to be worried about)
AFAIK.   JIT at runtime is not something to be concerned about, especially
with server oriented software.

I am quite impressed with Microsoft's CLR strategy...  It means projects
like Lucene.net don't have to exist (as a porting effort to c#, any way).

~ David

On 3/3/08 4:15 AM, "Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey David, thanks for the link. It was amazing...
> I have some doubt about the speed though. To my understanding, it's JIT
> compiling bytecode to IL, which in return is JIT compiled to machine code.
> Doesn't that affect runtime?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ali Shafai
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Smiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 4:54 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports?
> 
> Are you referring to the core Java libraries?  GNU Classpath is an open
> implementation of them.  And more recently, the OpenJDK has released it
> unencumbered.  Here is the CLR based Java solution I was thinking of:
> http://www.ikvm.net/index.html
> 
> 
>> As I'm no Java programmer, I might be wrong, but I think the port is
> needed
>> because of the underlying class libraries (BCL).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Ali Shafai
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Smiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 4:32 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports?
>> 
>> Hi; I stumbled across Lucene.Net.  I'm a Java developer, not a C#/.Net
> dev.
>> I thought there is an option or two for Java programs to run on
> Microsoft's
>> cool Common-Language-Runtime.  If so, it seems to me quite odd that
>> Lucene.Net would need to be ported to another programming language.  Part
> of
>> the beauty of the CLR is that you don't need to do these sorts of things.
>> Because it's a common runtime and different languages can interoperate
>> (within reason).  Even though whatever Java implementation for the CLR
> isn't
>> a perfect replica of Sun's implementation and would necessitate some
> changes
>> to Lucene, it's hard for me to believe that doing a language port would
> make
>> more sense than working on those tweaks.  Please fill me in on the
>> rationale.  You might want to put the response in a FAQ somewhere.  The
>> website doesn't have one.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> ~ David Smiley
>> 
> 

Reply via email to