On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:16:34AM -0800, Bill Kendrick wrote: > Well, in this case, it'd be a compiler. Instead of C -> x86 opcodes for > an Intel(tm) processor, for example, it'd be C -> Java(tm) bytecode for a JVM.
Why? Isn't C portable enough? I know next to nothing about Java (never saw the point of it), but I do remeber seeing something about running C-written program in the Java interpreter here: <http://grunge.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tolk/vmlanguages.html>. > One of my first questions when I first heard of Java back in the day was: > "So, you could compile C to a JVM? And you could compile Java to a real CPU?" > > I don't think there were tools at the time, but the person from Sun > (or wherever they were from) said something like: "yeah, I guess" :^) In fact, there IS a Java-to-native compiler: Gnu GCJ. -- Henry House The attached file is a digital signature. See <http://romana.hajhouse.org/pgp> for information. My OpenPGP key: <http://romana.hajhouse.org/hajhouse.asc>.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
