Re: [DotGNU]Java and Portable.NET

[Barry Fitzgerald]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, S11001001 wrote:

> Quotes from www.dotgnu.org (or www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/, which is where I
> first found it ;]:
>
> Other bytecode formats, such as Python bytecode, or the bytecode of Perl6,
> could be supported by similar plugins.
>
>  From DotGNU projects list in the FAQ:
>    2. CLR plugin for SEE
>       - must run on all major desktop systems
>
>    3. Java VM plugin for SEE
>       - must run on all major desktop systems
>
> While some of the language on /see.html is ambiguous (one could get confused
> about the separation of Java and IL plugins), it is clarified in the FAQ, and
> /see.html has obviously not been worked on very much... :-( OT: In fact, I'd
> like to rewrite that page, if webmaster would have me...
>

Feel free to rewrite it an submit your changes to the website list for
review, or here if you'd like.

> I think compiling Java bytecode to IL would slow execution time, and
> overcomplicate the interpretor/JIT; however, I am in favor of a Java SOURCE to
> IL compiler.
>

Only if the conversion is done at runtime.  I see no reason to convert
from one intermediate step to another in runtime (in the sense of
converting from bytecode -> IL, which would be counterproductive as I
understand things).

> Now I'll say, maybe we should ask Rhys WHY? I thought that the purpose of his
> "bytecode JIT" was to simplify things for execution, not support multiple
> bytecodes such as Java && IL. Might be wrong though...thus the WHY?
>

I thought that the point of IL was that multiple languages could be
compiled down to it... would I be correct there?

>
> And why should it deal with Java bytecode, practically?
>

Well, we need to support java bytecode for the purpose of options, however
SEE should either be aware of bytecode format (the best option) through a
plugin style system and to choose the appropriate VM, or we should just
have a way of converting bytecode -> IL PRIOR to runtime.

> We may both be. But the bytecode translation (Java<->IL) just seems like a
> waste of time.

There could be reason for this for people who want to run all of their
applications through one runtime.  It's not a priority, but it could be a
good project for someone.

        -Barry