harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 17:10:54 GMT
Ravi,

can you please add the link to the wiki as well.

thanks,
dims

On 5/14/05, Ravi kiran Gorrepati <ravi@cs.unm.edu> wrote:
> Check the design of Jikes at,
> http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/391/alpern.pdf
> 
> Though the memory subsytem section is a little outdated,
> that should not prevent you from understanding how it
> works.
> 
> --
> Ravi
> 
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:30:12 -0600, <tumnus@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 12 May 2005, at 12:17, theUser BL wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you use C to write the VM for Harmony.
> >>
> >
> > Forgive me if I am repeating what others have already said - I'm a bit
> > late to this.
> >
> > Bootstrapping the whole thing in Java is a very clever idea, but what
> > about the management of the heap (GC etc)? Presumably that would have to
> > be done in some layered system, with a very simplistic GC in the
> > bootstrap VM, with layers of extra logic on top of it? Or am I missing
> > something?
> >
> > If so, what sort of performance hit would this have? I agree that in
> > many ways it is a Good Thing, but so was Sun's handle redirection stuff
> > (where an object reference referred to a table, that referred to the
> > object) but Microsoft's Bad Way of simply linking to the object ran much
> > quicker. In fact, didn't Sun eventually switch to that way of working? I
> > think there was something about it in Simon Ritter's talk on GC at last
> > year's London Java Tech days.
> >
> > I know very little about all this (so please beat me only with a very
> > small stick and in a loving manner) but would it be possible to start
> > with an existing(?) JVM written in C/C++ and then start to migrate it
> > part by part into Java? Taking the baby steps approach, couldn't we work
> > out exactly where the log-jams are likely to be? And then get as much as
> > we can in Java, so long as it doesn't have a significant impact on
> > performance?
> >
> > Would taking the C/C++ --> Java approach mean that we could base our
> > discussions upon the evidence of the code, and less upon subjective
> > belief? More ground up and less BUFD?
> >
> > DG
> 
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/

Mime
View raw message