Fri, 06 Feb 1998 20:09:09 -0600
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>>>> "MY" == Maneesh Yadav <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> MY> OK, this may be a stupid comment, but I can't figure out a good answer.
> MY> Why is that VM's like java impliment their thing with a universal
> MY> bytecode?
> Efficiency, and portability. A byte code is a no brainer to
> interpret, just do a switch on the byte code, and go to the right
> place to interpret that.
I find it hard to believe that writing an java interpeter is as easy as writing
a big switch statement in a loop.
> Also basic optimizations can be done ahead of time.
Certain optimizations that work on one processers may not optimize well on
another, past the algorithm level, (take branch prediction for instance on a 486
pentium and ppro)
> Besides I haven't seen a `universal' bytecode.
> MY> Why not concentrate on a VM with a readable language with a JIT and save
> MY> space by leaving it up to a compression algo.?
> MY> In order to prevent the code stealing, mangled sources could be used...
> Code's copyrighted so why do you need to worry about code stealing?
Oh yeah, I forgot it's a perfect world with perfect programmers :-)....
> MY> I realize that a bytecode is good since it resembles a processers
> MY> instruction set nad is small. But why restrict a language to only work
> MY> with today's processing paradigms (who knows what's next). Surely a
> MY> good HLL leaves more room for the future.
> It's expedient, simple, and well tested. When that future comes you
> upgrade your virtual machine.
That's what I'm saying we could possibly prevent by not using a bytecode, no one
likes to upgrade unless they have to....
> MY> Doesn't bytcode just put an unessecary step in between
> MY> idea-> language->program?
> No. It just specifies the form.
Couldn't that be done more elegantly in an HLL?