thinking about virtual machines

[Michael Korns]

Fare,

> For instance, I'd like to hear why the LISP core language
> isn't enough of a VM to you, etc.

We need a more machine centric VM which is easy to translate into native
binary on disparate machines.

> > Second, we must start with the Java VM standard and extend (not alter
it).
> Foo!

Yes, well I interpret Foo! as a No vote to include the Java VM.

> If you want that, you'd better go ahead and do it;
> you seem to know better what you want that we do.
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you can expect more in your project
than
> helpful suggestions from this project, especially in a six-month delay.
> Your project to do a better JVM as the basis of a standardization
> of your commercial Agentbase system seems worthwhile
> (except that I personally only trust free software),
> but it is clearly distinct from the lispOS project.
 
I can accept No as an answer. It sure beats maybe. How may others feel this
way. Should we bark up another tree?
----------
> From: Fare Rideau <rideau@ens.fr>
> To: Michael Korns <mkorns@ix.netcom.com>
> Cc: Lisp OS project <lispos@math.gatech.edu>
> Subject: Re: thinking about virtual machines
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 1997 2:34 PM
> 
> >: Michael Korns
> 
> Dear Michael,
>    you seem very enthusiastic about a VM design.
> Now, I'd like that you answer my previous post on the list,
> and explain what are the goals and constraints of your VM,
> and what general kind of VM design you envision,
> and what in this design is justified by the goal,
> what comes from what other reasons.
> For instance, I'd like to hear why the LISP core language
> isn't enough of a VM to you, etc.
> 
> > First, we should develop an "LVM" standard "straw dog" and quickly
develop
> > code around it.
> What is there to develop? You're focusing on implementational issues,
> but we still do not know what to code with this implementation technique,
> so how can we know whether it's fit for the goal!?
> Again, you seam to imply that the VM would specifically emulate
> a von Neuman machine, much like current hardware CPUs.
> why ain't (a suitable encoding of) the core LISP language satisfying?
> Until we have it, we can already program in LISP (which, btw?)
> (any EuLisper around?).
> 
> > Second, we must start with the Java VM standard and extend (not alter
it).
> Foo! If by chance the JVM has room for extension, then be sure that
*they*
> (or Microsoft) will extend it, so don't you expect stay compatible if you
> do more than strictly following (unless you can outhype the Java people);
> if you want JVM compatibility, your only chance is
> to pressure the mainstream JVM to include your extensions,
> of which you would give a prototype.
>    This might be possible -- after all, Guy Steele is co-heading Java
design;
> but this isn't the main purpose of the lispOS project, afair.
> 
> 
> > It can be done quickly (say six months to critical code mass).
> > It is up to the LispOS community to decide.
> If you want that, you'd better go ahead and do it;
> you seem to know better what you want that we do.
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you can expect more in your project
than
> helpful suggestions from this project, especially in a six-month delay.
> Your project to do a better JVM as the basis of a standardization
> of your commercial Agentbase system seems worthwhile
> (except that I personally only trust free software),
> but it is clearly distinct from the lispOS project.
> 
> 
> PS: it's Wrong(tm) to entirely quote the message you answer to
> at the end of yours.
> 
> == Fare' -- rideau@ens.fr -- Franc,ois-Rene' Rideau -- DDa(.ng-Vu~ Ba^n
==
> Join the TUNES project for a computing system based on computing freedom
!
>                 TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System
> URL: "http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/rideau/Tunes/"