harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Humberto S. N. dos Anjos" <h.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compilation of other languages
Date Sat, 14 May 2005 18:41:47 GMT
As far as I know, you don't have to convert your source code written in 
Python, for example, to Java before compiling. It's an easy way out, since 
you only map Python structures to Java classes and let javac do the heavy 
lifting, but not strictly necessary. Since the JVM only understands 
bytecodes, if I give it bytecodes it'll be happy. The compiler is the one 
responsible for converting your source code in bytecodes for the JVM, so 
you're essentially suggesting for Harmony to provide compilers for other 
languages instead of only Java, so that my code written in Java could be 
used in my VB code, for example. Interesting possibility, but since the 
primary objective seems to be a 100% compatible JVM, that's something of a 
side goal. Of course, if somebody wants to create the extra compilers, their 
code is pretty much independent from the Harmony VM code, so go ahead.

Now, about supporting the .NET languages... I've read some serious critiques 
about Managed C++ and VB.NET <http://VB.NET> on the Internet, and C# has 
several structures inexistent in Java (structs, delegates/events) that 
require some careful thought to avoid inefficient code generation.
Comega<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml01142005.asp>seems
even worse, allowing SQL and XML syntax in the middle of your code
(!!!), as well as adding extra structures (anonymous structs, streams, 
choice types, nullable types, among others) to properly map these new 
additions. That's supposing you won't support the .NET libraries, which 
would render the whole effort nearly useless. Honestly, I don't think that, 
for now at least, this should be a concern. 

[]'s


On 5/14/05, tumnus@mac.com <tumnus@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> I am guessing that one reason for Harmony's modular approach will be
> to support the compilation of other languages straight to byte-codes,
> without having to convert into Java source first. I think there is a
> definite need to handle the .Net set of languages (assuming there
> were not patent problems), but what others might we need?
> 
> Also, would we need something akin to Bison writing?
> 
> DG
> 

_______________________
Humberto S. N. dos Anjos, SCJP 1.4, SCJP 5.0

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message