Re: Generating Java Bytecode

kuznetso@MIT.EDU (Eugene Kuznetsov)
21 Nov 1996 23:11:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (1996-11-19)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (John Carter) (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode jhummel@crispix.ICS.UCI.EDU (Joe Hummel) (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (Bart Demoen) (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (Bruce Stephens) (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode kuznetso@MIT.EDU (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (Bill Mangione-Smith) (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (1996-11-21)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (Andrew Lynch) (1996-11-24)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (Stefan Heinzmann) (1996-11-24)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (1996-11-26)
Re: Generating Java Bytecode (1996-11-26)
[7 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: kuznetso@MIT.EDU (Eugene Kuznetsov)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 21 Nov 1996 23:11:33 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 96-11-108 96-11-121 96-11-130
Keywords: Java, interpreter, comment

kuznetso@MIT.EDU (Eugene Kuznetsov) writes:
> 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).
                                                                ^^^ (Jon S Anthony) wrote:
> So, I really don't understand your "significantly more difficult" comment
> here. Any actual reasons?

In other words, I said that Ada, CLU and several other languages would
work fine on a java VM. I wasn't aware of commercial Ada implementations,
but it is what I'd expect considering its popularity.

> ???? 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).

Well, it depends on personal perspective, to me two languages with
basically the same syntax are "very much alike." Java GC and threads are
not at all intrusive and both are available as extensions to C++. I did
mention that java has what could be termed "multiple inheritance light"
with interfaces, but the point is that java-the-language can be easily
thought of as a subset of C++.

> [Before you head down this path, you really should look at the history and
> learn why all the previous UNCOL projects failed.

I agree, although java bytecode may have a slightly higher chance of
success because of its commercial importance. (In other words, with
everyone churning out JIT compilers and trying to get the highest
CaffeineMark scores, there is a lot of resources being devoted to
performance of the basic runtime.)

                                                                                                                        Eugene Kuznetsov
[Actually, I think the thing that makes Java most likely to succeed is that
the only execution environment that people care about is inside a Web browser
with a screen, keyboard, mouse, and net connection. That may be constrained
enough to avoid environmental heat death. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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