harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Developing Harmony
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 10:11:58 GMT
Brett Porter wrote:
>>LLVM looks cool, but comes with a wholebunchastuff under different
>>licenses embedded in it. A casual inspection suggests we can probably
>>work around them, but a closer inspection would be required.
> 
> 
> They all looked to be the same with additional copyrights, ie BSD-ish,
> with the exception of a stripped down libc which is LGPL. But I'll
> respect Leo's rights to not discuss licensing issues :) This means it
> should probably be evaluated on its merits.

Don't go too far with that - any code we commit has to have a licence we 
can live with. That means anything in the (current) core, of course.

So, we can not worry about classpath, but I don't think we can not worry 
about the JVM.

>>I don't really buy this is a drawback, since whatever you choose,
>>everybody'll have to learn it.
>>
>>It would be wrong to assume that everyone involved in this project is
>>totally in love with Java :-)
> 
> I'd have thought everyone knew it though, or at least wanted to learn
> it, given they are implementing, well, Java :)

Sure enough. Still doesn't mean they want to implement a JVM in it :-)

>>I'm pretty sure we want a framework in C/C++, whatever components are
>>developed in.
>>
>>Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which would
>>you prefer?
> 
> If it came down to that, I think C++ for 3 reasons:
> - the concepts are a lot closer to Java, which should make most people
> feel more comfortable, and should there be any wanting to later write a
> component in Java instead or vice-versa, the design structure is less
> likely to change
> - it would give an opportunity to work with a new incubator project
> (should it be accepted)

?

> - you can still use any C APIs in C++, but the reverse is not true (or
> at least, not easy).

Actually, it really isn't that hard...

x.f(a,b,c);

just becomes

f_variant1(x,a,b,c);

not that this generally leads to anything you'd want to use :-)

Certainly the other way around is less crufty.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Mime
View raw message