Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| ANDF [Architecture Neutral Distribution Format] and TDF - What is th ck@kuckuk.com (Carsten Kuckuk) (2001-08-17) |
| Re: ANDF [Architecture Neutral Distribution Format] and TDF - What kahrs@iSenseIt.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Kahrs) (2001-09-16) |
| Re: ANDF [Architecture Neutral Distribution Format] and TDF - What is kahrs@iSenseIt.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Kahrs) (2001-09-20) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF gmc444@yahoo.com (2001-10-10) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-12) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF asunil@csa.iisc.ernet.in (Sunil Kumar Anand) (2001-10-12) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF jesper@zuschlag.dk (Jesper Zuschlag) (2001-10-13) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF jesper@zuschlag.dk (Jesper Zuschlag) (2001-10-13) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF David.Chase@naturalbridge.com (David Chase) (2001-10-13) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-13) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF vbdis@aol.com (2001-10-13) |
| Re: JVM as UNCOL, was ANDF/TDF fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2001-10-16) |
| [7 later articles] |
| From: | Sunil Kumar Anand <asunil@csa.iisc.ernet.in> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 12 Oct 2001 00:24:13 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 01-08-091 01-09-064 01-09-075 |
| Keywords: | UNCOL, Java |
| Posted-Date: | 12 Oct 2001 00:24:12 EDT |
> I dont like Java and also dont want to do too much nitpicking, but
> take a look at this:
> Programming Languages for the Java Virtual Machine
> http://grunge.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tolk/vmlanguages.html
> You can port everything to the JVM - it's Turing-complete after all.
>
Yes,everything can be ported to JVM.But the important point to be
noted is how good rather bad the efficiency of the programs will
be.Most of the times it happens that u r spoiling the efficiency of
the language which u r porting to JVM.
The question of porting C and C++ does not arise at all because C and
C++ have pointer accessses which Java does not allow at any cost.
Regarding aothers,the eficciency has been the prime
consideration. Java Bytecode(which is what Java Programmers call class
files) was designed for interpretation.But soon it was found that
interpretation is slower and then switched over to JIT(Just In Time
compilation).
But the problem with JIT is it takes too much time to start an
application(since it has to compile to native code and then start
execution).
The next advancement is Hotspot compiling.In this method initially the
program starts executing in interpreter mode and profiling is done to
see which part of the program is being executed more(effectively it is
called "hotspot") and these hotspots are compiled so that whenever
next time call to that part is made u can just invoke the compiled
code.
Just like Java has Bytecode, C# has MSIL(Microsoft Intermediate
Language). That's how .NET supports multiple languages on its
platform.
MSIL instruction is designed in such a way that it is easy to JIT
compile rather than interpret.
Interesting research area is how best we can exploit the instruction
set to optimize the code generated by JIT compiler.Also how good will
the performance of this MSIL when compared to Java bytecode is still
not known.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.