|C# for java email@example.com (Francois Gagnon) (2003-04-15)|
|Re: C# for java firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2003-04-20)|
|Re: C# for java email@example.com (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-04-20)|
|Re: C# for java bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-04-27)|
|Re: C# for java firstname.lastname@example.org (Sander Vesik) (2003-04-27)|
|Re: C# for java email@example.com (Randall R Schulz) (2003-05-06)|
|Re: C# for java firstname.lastname@example.org (Sander Vesik) (2003-05-15)|
|From:||Randall R Schulz <email@example.com>|
|Date:||6 May 2003 01:33:00 -0400|
|References:||03-04-059 03-04-073 03-04-107|
|Posted-Date:||06 May 2003 01:33:00 EDT|
Sander Vesik wrote:
> Oliver Zeigermann <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <http://grunge.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tolk/vmlanguages.html>). 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
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.