> -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Nov 1, 2005 8:05 PM > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: half-baked idea? j2me > > Rodrigo Kumpera wrote: > > >On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>>On 11/1/05, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Rodrigo Kumpera wrote: > >>>> ...snip... > > > >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. > > > > > Actually my colleagues at ANU and I were remarking last week that all > the recent discussion on the Harmony list (configure scripts, packed > structs etc etc) were close to being proof that Java was the easier way > to go. > > Another data point (FWIW) - joeq, excluding the compiler and the class > library interface comes in at ~39,000 lines of code. bootJVM is already > over 50,000. I know that KLOC is a pretty bogus measure of complexity, > but it certainly says _something_. And Joeq is a fully functioning VM. >
Notice also that bootJVM also intentionally has _lots_ of comments describing what it does and how it does it, just FYI. Not to mention a full set of documentation tags for the 'doxygen' documentation compiler. Just for what it's worth. By the way, I'm working through the last round of opcodes, so I should have an update by the end of next week that will fill in the remaining blanks in basic functionality. Dan Lydick Dan Lydick
