harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tum...@mac.com
Subject Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 16:30:12 GMT

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

Mime
View raw message