Re: Generating Java Bytecode

kuznetso@MIT.EDU (Eugene Kuznetsov) writes:


> [Universal machine intermediate languages go back to the 1950s, and
> they've never worked. From what I've seen of the Java intermediate
> language, it works fine for Java, OK for Ada, not so great for anything
> else. In particular, it specifically doesn't include C's wild 'n' crazy
> pointer rules. -John]


Hmmm, it seems (admittedly as only a user) that it works fine for Ada
as well. Any reason (that I have not hit yet) for why you think
otherwise?




> While I have not myself attempted this, it is certainly possible.
> Some languages are certainly much easier than others (one of the
> Scheme dialects can already be compiled to java bytecode, Ada, CLU and
> several other languages would not be significantly more difficult).


Well, that is odd. I know Scheme has some sort of J-code impl out
there, but Ada has a couple _commercial_ level ones right now. They
work (as far as I have been able to tell so far) _very_ well. So, I
really don't understand your "significantly more difficult" comment
here. Any actual reasons?




> The next question is why you would want to do this. Java is not all
> that different from C++ (well, except for that depressing
> multiple-inheritance problem), so it could be used in its place for


???? This sounds odd too. I mean Java also has interfaces, packages,
threads, and basically presumes automated GC. Doesn't sound too much
like C++ at all (except for the syntax).




> [Before you head down this path, you really should look at the history and
> learn why all the previous UNCOL projects failed. They all looked great with
> one or two input languages and targets, then collapsed of heat death when
> they tried to generalize more. -John]


Yeah, this certainly sounds about right...


/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.