harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dalibor Topic <robi...@kaffe.org>
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Fri, 13 May 2005 12:12:58 GMT
Matthew French wrote:

> But I am still thinking that we can make it so that we have a choice of
> multiple VM's - which can be written in C, C++, Java, .Net, Perl, Python
> or whatever other language takes the authors fancy. I can see many valid
> reasons why we would want to do this, but the trick is getting it to work
> without adding enormous complexity.

What worked well for GNU Classpath, and in my opinion helped the 
cambrian explosion of free runtimes happen, that we witnessed within GNU 
Classpath in the last two years, was to use Java for the interfaces, and 
let the VMs do their own marshalling to whatever language they use 

I'd be interested in hearing more from Steve on how well that works 
within JikesRVM. From reading some papers on the web, it seems that the 
MMTk has been ported to other, non-Java runtimes as well, and I guess 
that this binding-vm-components-via-java-interfaces problem has been 
efficiently solved by other bright people already outside the 
pure-java-runtime space.

> How is Classpath done? Is the bulk of the code implemented in C and
> wrapped in Java? Or is it Java with a thin C api?

The bulk is written in Java. The largest chunk of C in classpath is 
fdlibm, I believe, which should be eventually kicked out and replaced by 
VM interfaces to let the VMs optimize Math.*() operations internally any 
way they want without having to maintiain their separate copy of 

dalibor topic

View raw message