harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Heath <steve.he...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM
Date Fri, 13 May 2005 09:09:02 GMT
won't that all be a little complicated? The JVM runs bytecode, not
Java itself. Isn't there an equivalent for .Net too? I don't know
about languages such as Smalltalk, but I think their standard is the
language itself, it's up to the interpreter to deal with it from
there. I suspect will suggest we need a

Given the gulf between the structures of these languages and bytecode
systems, is this thread suggesting a completely generic VM and having
some kinda translator to move from bytecodes to Harmony-codes?

On 5/13/05, 王在祥 <wangzaixiang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree.
> 
> 2005/5/12, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>:
> >
> > 王在祥 wrote:
> > > Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is
> > > possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET,
> > Haskell,
> > > Smalltalk etc.
> > >
> > > the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management,
> > multi
> > > thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it
> > can
> > > define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode
> > can
> > > be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.
> >
> > First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see
> > what happens after we reach that goal.
> >
> > --
> > Stefano.
> >
> >
>
Mime
View raw message