[Mono-list] Misunderstanding the JVM stack on mono-hackers-list (was: [Mono-hackers-list] My current thinking.)

Jay Freeman (saurik) saurik@saurik.com
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:41:45 -0500


First off, the first comment is not meant to be related to the second in the
way you imply by your citation.  I was not advocating that people pay
attention to watch for mistakes.

Secondly, I've read through _every single_ message that is on the
mono-hackers-list archive that has come after "My current thinking" by date,
and nowhere do you, nor anyone else, mention anything further about the Java
stack.  You didn't even admit to being wrong about ORP on the mono-list
mailing list a few days ago when the topic came up (something I would have
expected given the context).  If I missed something somewhere and am wrong
about this on either count, fine, there was no need for me to make the
comment, but I'm not going to apologize for bringing it up again; and I'm
especially not going to apologize for a post that cites actual points in the
Java VM spec, something you have _specifically_ asked for in previous
threads, to back up the point.

Re-reading this comment for the 20th time, do you mean this one to mono-list
(namely, the other comment in question)?

I have only access to kaffe and ORP as JITers, and I am surprised that
they are basically macro expanding JITer with a few optimizations
thrown in.  As I said, I thought this was a property of the byte codes
rather than a property of Kaffe.

If so, I'm sorry I misunderstood it; until I started cross-referencing
threads I didn't see the possible connection between this and the issue of
restrictions; as what is cited by this e-mail is a snippit having to do with
a CLR having "tricky additional functionality" and nothing having to do with
the sections of Tom's post having to do with restrictions on byte-code


Frankly, I find the tone of your comment rather un-called for.  If that was
meant to be in jest, you might want to attach a smiley face or other textual
accoutrement as it isn't very clear.  I was attempting to point out
something that was wrong with a specific argument (and, seeing as I don't
believe I can post to the mono-hackers-list, I sent my reply to mono-list),
not attempting to disparage any individual person for making any such
comments.  There is nothing _wrong_ with being "wrong", and I'm not trying
to show anything about the person making a comment when I attack the
foundation of it.  I _abhore_ ad hominem arguments.  If you want to start
attacking each other I feel I have more than enough ammunition, but that
should be taken to another forum (such as back to private conversation, or
maybe a mono-flamewar mailing list to add to the ever-growing number of
lists associated with this project).

I have a deep interest in there being a viable runtime on Unix (we at
Eschaton Gaming want to target parts of the scripting environment of our 3D
engine to .NET; we are currently using my reimplementation of COM for Linux
compatibility, but see .NET as a better future target), and don't want to
see simple technical misunderstandings get into the decision making, a
situation that could impare progress towards a strong platform.  If it
doesn't look like something was properly addressed, I'll be _damned_ if I'm
not going to spend the time to bring it up and verify that it truly _was_
covered and that _all_ parties understand the result, even if it means
bringing it up _again_.

Jay Freeman (saurik)

* _Please_ do not reply _both_ to me and the mailing list.  I'm on the
mailing list to be on the mailing list and have no use for multiple copies
of messages that manage to get by my mail filtration software and into my
inbox where they don't belong.  --  Footer a suggestion of Micheal Poole to
deal with Reply-To: being considered harmful and the Reply-All that people
use to side-step the issue. *

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel@ximian.com>
To: "Jay Freeman (saurik)" <saurik@saurik.com>
Cc: "mono-list" <mono-list@ximian.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Misunderstanding the JVM stack on mono-hackers-list
(was: [Mono-hackers-list] My current thinking.)

> > If people aren't keeping up with what is happening on mono-hackers-list
> > really should.  Frankly, I hate the dichotomy created by the GNOME
> > list organizational structure, but, once again, another question
> > Here is a message in the archive that relates to the JVM thread:
> You should also keep track of the list.  As a few days ago I admitted
> that I was wrong.
> Miguel.