[Mono-list] .NET <-> Java

Morten Sylvest Olsen mortenolsen@mail.com
Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:55:11 +0100 (CET)


>> rather than a world where everything is coded in Java... if Java
>> is you prefered language, yay you!...
>    Java is a language -- JVM is a platform. I have seen Assemblers,
> compilers targeting the JVM. One of my friends wrote a small compiler
> for JVM (using Apache BCEL) based on BASIC-80.

Well, the problem is most compilers for the JVM is just that, small toy
languages. Unfortunately the JVM sucks in many ways for langauges that
does not look like Java.

>>.. if you prefer to just use Java again, yay you!
>    Have you ever looked at the JVM .class files, they are so simple
>in structure , unlike the MZ'd executables of M$ .NET . First you have
>to take care of all the junk associated with a standard EXE , after that
>the stack based code too.

JVM files may be simple, but they are also bloated. Because each file
contains symbolic references for all externally referenced classes. Only
about 20% of a Java class file is code, the rest is strings of the form
"Ljava/lang/String" etc.

>> So, reverting to your consideration of Java as a platform on which
>> to implement another language,

>    The JVM has lesser instructions than CLR . The obvious misses are
>the pointer instructions (don't tell me these are easily portable !).
>The possibility is very limited in that case.

I don't see why pointer instructions are inherently unportable?

- Morten

If you think before you speak the other guy gets his joke in first.
email: morten@bergsoe.k-net.dk,c958496@student.dtu.dk
addresse: Bergsøe Kollegiet v. 1105 2850 Nærum