Re: C# for java

Randall R Schulz <>
6 May 2003 01:33:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
C# for java (Francois Gagnon) (2003-04-15)
Re: C# for java (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2003-04-20)
Re: C# for java (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-04-20)
Re: C# for java (Robert A Duff) (2003-04-27)
Re: C# for java (Sander Vesik) (2003-04-27)
Re: C# for java (Randall R Schulz) (2003-05-06)
Re: C# for java (Sander Vesik) (2003-05-15)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Randall R Schulz <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 May 2003 01:33:00 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 03-04-059 03-04-073 03-04-107
Keywords: Java, C#
Posted-Date: 06 May 2003 01:33:00 EDT


Sander Vesik wrote:
> Oliver Zeigermann <> wrote:
>> As there are certain constructs in C# (local objects stored on
>> stack, listeners as integrated part of the language, etc.) that are
>> not supported by the JVM, I would say this is impossible.
> By the same approach, having scheme run on jvm (no call/cc or
> similar, etc) should be impossible aswell, no? One can for example
> always emulate the presence of a stack, and merely put objects that
> need to be removed when stack unwinds on it.

It's been done, not just for Scheme, but for many other languages, too
(see <>). I cannot
vouch for the quality or usability of the various code generators
produced by all these projects, but the sheer number suggests it's
pretty feasible for a wide variety of languages.

There's an obvious motivation to do this: The extensive work that goes
into improving the performance of the JVM and its portability gives a
considerable advantage to the compiler writer.

Google for "Scheme JVM" and you'll get plenty of hits, including the
page I referenced above.

> -- Sander

Randall Schulz

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.