> We are *NOT* going to be writing a JVM from scratch, we are open for > donations.
So why wasn't this cleared up from the start? Why state steadfastly that it was open and plausible. Ambiguity wastes time, obviously, maybe the Apache "moderators" (for lack of a better word) should go and list what is probably plausible and probably not plausible for the suggested implementation of the jvm, libraries etc. > > Currently we have two potential candidates: > > - jc (written in C) > - jikes rvm (written in java) Between those two I'm on the side of jc becuase it should run faster than jikes rvm, I don't know why it wouldn't. Though I don't know why Kaffe isn't on the list. > > if you own a JVM written in Pascal or C++ or Lisp or Smalltalk or OCML > or Perl or Oberon or Prolog or ADA or Eiffel or RPG/3 or COBOL or > whatever other programming language and you are willing to donate it and > license it under the Apache License, make your voice heard on the > language topic, if not, don't! And this part is completely unnecessary, and bothersome. If you have somethign to say, say it and don't bother with the flaming. -- ~Bryce Leo --Veritas Vos Liberabis--
