Re: C# for java

Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee>
27 Apr 2003 02:43:40 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
C# for java fgagnon@inouii.com (Francois Gagnon) (2003-04-15)
Re: C# for java wildstf@hotmail.com (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2003-04-20)
Re: C# for java oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-04-20)
Re: C# for java bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-04-27)
Re: C# for java sander@haldjas.folklore.ee (Sander Vesik) (2003-04-27)
Re: C# for java rrschulz@cris.com (Randall R Schulz) (2003-05-06)
Re: C# for java sander@haldjas.folklore.ee (Sander Vesik) (2003-05-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Apr 2003 02:43:40 -0400
Organization: ERA/EKI FO
References: 03-04-059 03-04-073
Keywords: C#, Java, comment
Posted-Date: 27 Apr 2003 02:43:40 EDT

Oliver Zeigermann <oliver@zeigermann.de> 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.


--
Sander
[They're all Turing-complete so it's always possible to translate one
language into another. The question is how gross and ugly the
translation is and how much of the target language's native features
you can use to handle similar features in the source language. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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