-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/30/2011 03:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 11/30/2011 09:56 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote: >> Are you not being a bit simplistic here? >> >> There are several JVM implementations around not just one. >> > > Where did he talk about implementations? He only described the > _design_ of the JVM. > >> Plus if I understand correctly some complains of people using D >> in real projects, in many cases JVM JITs are able to generate >> better code than D. At least for the time being. >> > > Nope. (Even when interpreting 'D' as 'DMD'). Except when the D code > is written badly. >
there was recently a test case where D outperformed C++. I would be VERY surprised if a JVM JIT could outperform D, excepting the occasional corner case of course. I'd love to see any tests that prove that JIT could generally generate better code. >> >>> I used to be intimately familiar with the JVM, I even wrote a >>> gc for it. The bytecode ops in it are designed for Java, >>> nothing more. Worse, it's a primitive stack machine. To >>> generate even passably good native code, the JVM has to do a >>> lot of reverse engineering of the bytecode. >>> >>> For example, you cannot pass by value anything other than the >>> primitive Java data types. There are no pointers. Want an >>> unsigned int? Forget it. Arrays of anything but class >>> references? Nyuk nyuk nyuk. Etc. >>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO1sLPAAoJENcHIWLyQiSlIuEIALAy/su13wgWfIfemUQ8b9O8 83624N8+SGAjJgMkgVLoYbPQbjqp5bOhWxaUE97CAZeWj4kfcKwVPQ2shB37xhwG EQ6QUlMBCIPVBMdd/2/zz2KFdEgkxNoKcgyQh7mCUTAdwTI49ccXwZ42MgT2NQtB pQe+6k8SJCOEV4KQoya6gjWQHMN54FdiRu4mTxoe1uGUtVSViBY5LxVdxCD7J7wA p3VGDdjDHfssaGYBRpSc8/+NIybAEViN8Sg3EQ3FrO9BUJEopOPeKdzNkm1fPWaQ p43Fv7Abn3L0bK1rBTPMl68T7/lPV16ojoLNmdc/EJ9CazHJuk56iB6Q0I2c438= =rXhD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----