not be a problem at all...
Tommie.
- Original Message -
From: Steven Gong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: mudGE VM (was RE: Developing Harmony)
On 5/20/05, Nick Lothian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try mudGE VM
On May 20, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Rafal Lewczuk wrote:
Hi,
On 5/19/05, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MudgeVM is under an open license and should be looked at before
you start
committing stuff :-)
I've tried googling and freshmeating for 'MudgeVM' but couldn't
find it.
Can I ask
Try mudGE VM.
The link is www.mudge.nl/java/
-Original Message-
From: Rafal Lewczuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2005 4:26 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Developing Harmony
Hi,
On 5/19/05, Ian Darwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MudgeVM
Rob Gonzalez wrote:
- Kaffe is GPL and no one organization or person owns the copyright
(as compared to GNU projects, for example), so it's basically
impossible to re-license.
s/no one/no single/ :)
everyone owns the copyright to their own contributions, which is what
would make relicensing a
Ben == Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One answer is, cross-build the VM from another machine that it does
work on. This is one way people bring up GCC on a new machine as
well.
Ben I'm going to stop beating on this dead horse: you'll be happy if we
Ben can implement the VM in Java.
Tom Tromey wrote:
One thing I don't know, that I would like to know, is what parts of
the java class libraries are used by the JikesRVM core. How big is
the minimal installed image? What runtime facilities of Java are
assumed by the core? E.g., does the JIT itself rely crucially on
exception
On May 19, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Rob Gonzalez wrote:
- 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.
AFAICT JC is the only real
On May 19, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Ian Darwin wrote:
AFAICT JC is the only real option on the table right now.
- jc was donated under the apache license.
since we're now officially in the incubator, can we check this
into an
apache SVN repository and get hacking at it?
MudgeVM is under an open
this topic
- Original Message -
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Developing Harmony
Ozgur Akan wrote:
JVM in Java will be the slower then Sun`s JVM. C or C++ is a better
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Bryce Leo wrote:
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal? If
we're considering C as it is this really isn't a terrible suggestion.
I know it's fallen out of favor with most of you guys but it compiles
quickly and supports a good number of
Tom Tromey wrote:
Ben == Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm pretty sure we want a framework in C/C++, whatever components
are developed in.
Umm. Why?
Ben So it can run everywhere.
FWIW, writing a VM in java doesn't make this harder per se.
In fact, in a way it is easier as you are
Mark Brooks wrote:
C++, just C++, is a recipe for trouble. Most projects that use it
define a
subset to make development a less painfull talk. Usually operator
overloading, templates and virtual inheritance are discarded.
Rodrigo
Agreed. If the decision is to go with C++, it will need to be a
Ben Laurie wrote:
Mark Brooks wrote:
C++, just C++, is a recipe for trouble. Most projects that use it
define a
subset to make development a less painfull talk. Usually operator
overloading, templates and virtual inheritance are discarded.
Rodrigo
Agreed. If the decision is to go with C++, it
We shouldl design in such a way that , we should get some
interfacing/bootstrapping issues in C (can be C++ but i think due to its
direct linking to natives C will be prefered i can present more argo over it
though ;) )
and then come back to java again until we feel ctuck some where (though
Paul Richards wrote:
a) I recently tried Eclipse, and discovered it removed a major source of
Java irritation (excessive amounts of redundant typing). In fact, I love
Eclipse. If only I could get it working on FreeBSD :-)
The FreeBSD Eclipse port just worked for me.
Just goes to show that ports
But I guess the language will just depend on who donates a JVM.
- Jónas Tryggvi
Since somebody(s) are in conversation with FSF about Classpath, has anyone
started a conversation with IBM research about Jikes RVM? Just a
prelimininary sort of if we were interested what would be involved sort of
Ozgur Akan wrote:
JVM in Java will be the slower then Sun`s JVM. C or C++ is a better choice.
You have to undertand that written in Java does *NOT* equate
necessarely as will be run as interpreted bytecode.
--
Stefano.
Ben Laurie wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Bryce Leo wrote:
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal? If
we're considering C as it is this really isn't a terrible suggestion.
I know it's fallen out of favor with most of you guys but it compiles
quickly and supports a good
Ben == Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben This has to be a VM that produces native code, right?
Yes.
Ben In any case, here I am with a platform that currently has no VM, but
Ben does have a C compiler. What do I do?
One answer is, cross-build the VM from another machine that it does
Tom Tromey wrote:
Ben == Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben This has to be a VM that produces native code, right?
Yes.
Ben In any case, here I am with a platform that currently has no VM, but
Ben does have a C compiler. What do I do?
One answer is, cross-build the VM from another machine
On May 13, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Steve Blackburn wrote:
I am going to stick my neck out and make a few concrete suggestions
for how the Harmony VM might be developed.
A few motivating goals:
o Focus on modular, interchangeable components
- exploit existing compilers, memory managers etc
-
LLVM looks cool, but comes with a wholebunchastuff under different
licenses embedded in it. A casual inspection suggests we can probably
work around them, but a closer inspection would be required.
They all looked to be the same with additional copyrights, ie BSD-ish,
with the exception of a
On May 16, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
I'm pretty sure we want a framework in C/C++, whatever components
are developed in.
+1
Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which
would you prefer?
C++
Oog. grunt Thog like to bang rocks, but Thog also like inheritance,
ABCs
Steve Blackburn wrote:
A quick recap on key points from my original post (below):
. Focus on componentization
. Use one or two existing VMs to bootstrap and drive effort to componentize
. Concurrently develop new cores
As far as I can tell the goal of componentization is widely accepted.
I view
Simon Chappell wrote:
On 5/16/05, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which would you
prefer?
Thanks Ben, that is a very productive question.
--
Stefano.
Hi,
I also prefer C which is simpler to use and also As Nicolas said has
smaller memory footprint.
Ozgur Akan
Simon Chappell wrote:
On 5/16/05, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which would you
prefer?
C.
C++ was a
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal? If
we're considering C as it is this really isn't a terrible suggestion.
I know it's fallen out of favor with most of you guys but it compiles
quickly and supports a good number of operating systems and types of
hardware, like arm
Oog. grunt Thog like to bang rocks, but Thog also like inheritance, ABCs
and generics.
If by generics you mean STL, it is my understanding that creates
cross-platform problems, which is why many cross-platform C++ projects don't
use it.
I can't think of a single reason why C should be preferred over C++.
C can simply be viewed as a subset of C++
Not anymore, really. The current ISO standards for C and C++ have
eliminated the C++ is only a superset aspect. They really are different
languages.
Also, you CAN write C in an
Jónas Tryggvi Jóhannsson wrote:
Im however very fond of the idea of writing the JVM in Java. Im
beginning to look into the JikesRVM and I really like the idea,
especially as it is the language that everyone on this list is
familiar with. It would also maximize the quality of the tools that we
Jónas Tryggvi Jóhannsson wrote:
Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which would
you prefer?
I can't think of a single reason why C should be preferred over C++.
C can simply be viewed as a subset of C++, and as Java users we all
This might be true for newbies but anyone who
Do we need the extra features of C++ for the low-level stuff that
Harmony needs to do? Java can provide the OO wrappers around things,
we don't need Java wrappers around C++ classes around C functions..
I don't think there's enough gain in using C++ to warrant the extra
complexity in its use.
C++, just C++, is a recipe for trouble. Most projects that use it define a
subset to make development a less painfull talk. Usually operator
overloading, templates and virtual inheritance are discarded.
Rodrigo
On 5/17/05, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jónas Tryggvi Jóhannsson wrote:
If C/C++ is going to be used, the reference compiler is gcc. I don´t think
the pascal frontend of gcc is up to the others.
Rodrigo
On 5/17/05, Bryce Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal? If
we're considering C as it is this really
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal?
Which dialect? ISO or GPC? Free Pascal or Delphi? (and if Delphi, which
version) etc..
Ada95 is superior for most purposes to Pascal, is more standardized (there
is only one standard) and is also widely available. It also
On May 17, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Bryce Leo wrote:
Now don't go too crazy for my suggesting this, but why not pascal?
Wow. I've never had such a strong urge to vote someone off the
island :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:22 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Developing Harmony
On May 16, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
I'm pretty sure we want a framework in C/C++, whatever
C++, just C++, is a recipe for trouble. Most projects that use it define a
subset to make development a less painfull talk. Usually operator
overloading, templates and virtual inheritance are discarded.
Rodrigo
Agreed. If the decision is to go with C++, it will need to be a subset of
C++ for
Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
Jónas Tryggvi Jóhannsson wrote:
Question to the floor: if it had to be one of C and C++, which would
you prefer?
I can't think of a single reason why C should be preferred over C++.
C can simply be viewed as a subset of C++, and as Java users we all
This might be true
weldon! Been waiting! welcome!
geir
On May 17, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Weldon Washburn wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:22 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Developing Harmony
On May 16, 2005, at 11:51
-Original Message-
From: Weldon Washburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue May 17 23:53:28 2005
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject:Re: Developing Harmony
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16
Steve Blackburn wrote:
I am going to stick my neck out and make a few concrete suggestions
for how the Harmony VM might be developed.
A few motivating goals:
o Focus on modular, interchangeable components
- exploit existing compilers, memory managers etc
- promote configurability (different
Added your thoughts to wiki - http://wiki.apache.org/harmony
thanks,
dims
On 5/13/05, Steve Blackburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am going to stick my neck out and make a few concrete suggestions
for how the Harmony VM might be developed.
A few motivating goals:
o Focus on modular,
Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
b) Another very different VM (kaffe?)
. amenable to modularization
. amenable to other components (drop in MMTk?)
Of all the options presented so far, what I find most appealing is the
combination of a VM in Java (like JikesRVM) and a WAT approach like gcj
Panagiotis,
MMTk is being used in SableVM (i think!)
-- dims
On 5/13/05, Panagiotis Astithas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Blackburn wrote:
I am going to stick my neck out and make a few concrete suggestions
for how the Harmony VM might be developed.
A few motivating goals:
o
oops. operator error
(https://svn.sable.mcgill.ca/wsvn/sable/?rev=1732sc=1) threw me off.
SableVM does not use MMTk. But still
-- dims
On 5/13/05, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve,
This is great!!! I love the idea of using JikesRVM and one another JVM
(hey SableVM already
46 matches
Mail list logo
