|Generating Java Bytecode email@example.com (1996-11-18)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-11-19)|
|Generating Java Bytecode nasser@apldbio.COM (Nasser Abbasi) (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode kuznetso@MIT.EDU (1996-11-19)|
|Generating Java Bytecode email@example.com (Bill Purvis) (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode firstname.lastname@example.org (Stavros Macrakis) (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode email@example.com (nicolas (n.) chapados) (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode firstname.lastname@example.org (Gunnar R|nning) (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode email@example.com (1996-11-19)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode firstname.lastname@example.org (John Carter) (1996-11-21)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode jhummel@crispix.ICS.UCI.EDU (Joe Hummel) (1996-11-21)|
|Re: Generating Java Bytecode email@example.com (Bart Demoen) (1996-11-21)|
|[16 later articles]|
|From:||Stavros Macrakis <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||19 Nov 1996 23:33:52 -0500|
|Organization:||OSF Research Institute|
> I can't see any reason why in principle a C or C++ compiler couldnt
> be developed that produces bytecode, this way we could all write in
> our favourite language yet still get all the powerful benefits of Java.
> So far as I can see it's not Java that the clever idea[,] its the
> universal machine language (bytecode) that it produces.
The Java bytecode is intentionally _not_ a "universal machine
language". I suppose you could implement full C, including pointer
arithmetic, in it by adding a package of "unsafe conversions", but
then you're losing the "powerful benefits" of safety and machine-
On the other hand, many "safe" languages could be translated into
clean Java with modest performance losses compared to native code, and
preserving the powerful benefits of safety, machine-independent
behavior, and machine-independent representation.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.