On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Rodrigo Kumpera wrote: > >> > >> >AFAIK IKVM, sablevm and jamvm all run on portable devices. > >> > > >> >Developing a j2me jvm is not as easier as it seens, first, the > >> >footprint and execution performance must be really optimized, so > >> >expect a LOT of assembly coding. > >> > > >> > > >> Back to the language wars again :) This does not necessarily follow. > >> Try googling for the 'squawk' VM - they had a poster at OOPSLA last > >> week. This is a java-in-java virtual machine targetted at embedded > >> devices. The core VM runs in 80KB of memory. Device drivers are all > >> written in Java. > >> > > > > Robin, > > > > With a java-in-java VM even if you don't write directly in assembly > > you still need to generate machine code with java anyway, and that > > will look a lot like asm (JikesRVM baseline JITer for example). With > > C, for example, you can get away using just an interpreter. > > My mistake, obviously. When you said "performance must be really > optimized, so expect a LOT of assembly coding", I assumed you were saying > that large chunks of the VM would need to be written in assembler in order > to get adequate performance. > > So what _was_ the point you were making ? > > cheers > >
I was just trying to say that a decent j2me VM is not as simple as David suggested. Not that C or Java would be more suited to implement it. As a matter of fact, I think that java-in-java VMs can be as good as C/C++ based JVMs or better. But one thing is hard to deny, a simple JVM, like bootJVM, is a lot easier to write in C than in java (not using an AOT compiler). And that was my point, C/C++ sounds to be the easy path to start with.
