Hi Norbert!
>i'm a java programmer, and just read about your 'Java to IL >Compiler'-project. at one point it says, that java-bytecode is a >subset of cil-bytecode. Yes, thats right. If you look at Java-Assemblercode and IL-Code it looks at first like the same. Only the names of the Assembler-commands are diffeent. This Java-Program loads to integer variables and store the result in an third variable: iload_1 iload_2 iadd istore_3 The same in MS-IL: ldloc.1 ldloc.2 add stloc.3 So, at first it seams to be easy to translate: iload_x -> ldloc.x istore_x -> stloc.x iadd -> add return -> ret aload_0 -> ldarg.0 (Btw: More you can find under http://www.it-c.dk/courses/PFOO/F2002/notes10.txt) >would it be hard to make the mono-jit a hybrid platform which runs both >cil-bytecode and java classfiles (without prior >java-bytecode to cil translation)? I think its to hard, and it support not the philosophy behind Mono. Mono want to have a platform, on which different languages can be translatet and not to have a platform which starts different Assembler-code. >if you put so much energy into creating a fast JIT, why not use it for java >as well? Why should the Mono-programme do this? There existing a lot of JVM: Suns real JVM, the Blackdown-port, IBMs Java, etc. And as Open-Source alternatives there existing Kaffe, Japhar, Kissme, ElectricalFends (or how the JVM of the Mozilla-project is called), etc. >... instead of migrating software from java to cil, rather melt the >two technologies together (with some kind of bridge in between - i >guess that class-libraries still have to stay separate)... maybe >this would also reduce the 'cost' of creating language bindings to >gtk and gnome for both languages (like gtk# / java-gnome)... No, Mono _reduce_ this costs. You must only create bindings for Mono and all IL-code-programs can use it. An other point is, that I think, that the native-code-interfaces between Mono and Java are different. The idea of Mono is, to have only _one_ VM, on which all can run. And if there existing a binary-converter from Java-.class to IL and if there existing something like J-Sharp on Mono, you can write programs in Java, which than can run on Mono. You do not need two bindings (like your example: GTK-Sharp _and_ Java-Gnome). You need only _one_ of it (GTK-Sharp). Thats the idea of .NET and Mono. An other point is, that there are no people, who use OpenSource-JVMs. They all prefer Suns original. But for Unix there don�t exist a .NET-Framework. So it is possible, that in the future Mono is the standard .NET for unixes. >but i don't know if this makes sense from a technical point of >view... ;-) No, it don�t make sense. Greatings Freddy BL _________________________________________________________________ Senden und empfangen Sie Hotmail �ber Ihr Mobilger�t: http://mobile.msn.com _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
