You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/02/13 17:01:57 UTC
[tools] javac.exe
We need one.
I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
nice to have something....
Volunteers or comments?
geir
Re: [tools] javac.exe
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> We need one.
>>>>
>>>> I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
>>>> and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
>>>> typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
>>>> nice to have something....
>>>>
>>>> Volunteers or comments?
>>> I am not sure what the status is wrt to including EPLd/CPLd components.
>>> Can we distribute them? Depend on them?
>> We can depend on them, and I'm confident that Real Soon Now it will be
>> clear that we can distribute. If we can't distribute, we're need to do
>> as you suggest below....
>>
>
> cool. Thanks for helping get all that legalese woodwork worked out, and
> out of the way. :)
It's not me. Cliff is sorting out general ASF policy on this. I've
always thought that EPL, CPL and CDDL are just peachy, and he's just
making it official.
geir
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
>>> If no, then we should just write a compiler. I've recently come accross
>>> fjavac, an interesting little Java compiler project that uses O'caml and
>>> looks like fun. From the web page:
>>>
>>> "Our long term goal is to produce a complete and formal specification of
>>> Java compilation. To be complete, all language features and rules that
>>> are informally described in Sun's Java language specification will be
>>> included. To be formal, the specification will be written in a
>>> machine-checkable language of a logical framework (Twelf), using only
>>> axioms and inference rules. Fjava is written in a functional style to
>>> make such a formalization possible."
>>>
>>> see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stse/javac/ for details. I have no idea
>>> what the source code license it, though. But if we are writing compilers
>> >from scratch, then a ML dialect would be a pretty nice implementation
>>> language choice. See
>>> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/cmljava.html for details.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> dalibor topic
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> geir
>>>
>
>
Re: [tools] javac.exe
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>We need one.
> >>
> >>I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
> >>and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
> >>typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
> >>nice to have something....
> >>
> >>Volunteers or comments?
> >
> >I am not sure what the status is wrt to including EPLd/CPLd components.
> >Can we distribute them? Depend on them?
>
> We can depend on them, and I'm confident that Real Soon Now it will be
> clear that we can distribute. If we can't distribute, we're need to do
> as you suggest below....
>
cool. Thanks for helping get all that legalese woodwork worked out, and
out of the way. :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
> >
> >If no, then we should just write a compiler. I've recently come accross
> >fjavac, an interesting little Java compiler project that uses O'caml and
> >looks like fun. From the web page:
> >
> >"Our long term goal is to produce a complete and formal specification of
> >Java compilation. To be complete, all language features and rules that
> >are informally described in Sun's Java language specification will be
> >included. To be formal, the specification will be written in a
> >machine-checkable language of a logical framework (Twelf), using only
> >axioms and inference rules. Fjava is written in a functional style to
> >make such a formalization possible."
> >
> >see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stse/javac/ for details. I have no idea
> >what the source code license it, though. But if we are writing compilers
> >from scratch, then a ML dialect would be a pretty nice implementation
> >language choice. See
> >http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/cmljava.html for details.
> >
> >cheers,
> >dalibor topic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>geir
> >
> >
Re: [tools] javac.exe
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We need one.
>>
>> I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
>> and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
>> typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
>> nice to have something....
>>
>> Volunteers or comments?
>
> I am not sure what the status is wrt to including EPLd/CPLd components.
> Can we distribute them? Depend on them?
We can depend on them, and I'm confident that Real Soon Now it will be
clear that we can distribute. If we can't distribute, we're need to do
as you suggest below....
>
> If no, then we should just write a compiler. I've recently come accross
> fjavac, an interesting little Java compiler project that uses O'caml and
> looks like fun. From the web page:
>
> "Our long term goal is to produce a complete and formal specification of
> Java compilation. To be complete, all language features and rules that
> are informally described in Sun's Java language specification will be
> included. To be formal, the specification will be written in a
> machine-checkable language of a logical framework (Twelf), using only
> axioms and inference rules. Fjava is written in a functional style to
> make such a formalization possible."
>
> see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stse/javac/ for details. I have no idea
> what the source code license it, though. But if we are writing compilers
> from scratch, then a ML dialect would be a pretty nice implementation
> language choice. See
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/cmljava.html for details.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
>
>
>
>
>> geir
>
>
Re: [tools] javac.exe
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:01:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We need one.
>
> I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
> and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
> typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
> nice to have something....
>
> Volunteers or comments?
I am not sure what the status is wrt to including EPLd/CPLd components.
Can we distribute them? Depend on them?
If no, then we should just write a compiler. I've recently come accross
fjavac, an interesting little Java compiler project that uses O'caml and
looks like fun. From the web page:
"Our long term goal is to produce a complete and formal specification of
Java compilation. To be complete, all language features and rules that
are informally described in Sun's Java language specification will be
included. To be formal, the specification will be written in a
machine-checkable language of a logical framework (Twelf), using only
axioms and inference rules. Fjava is written in a functional style to
make such a formalization possible."
see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~stse/javac/ for details. I have no idea
what the source code license it, though. But if we are writing compilers
from scratch, then a ML dialect would be a pretty nice implementation
language choice. See
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/cmljava.html for details.
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> geir
Re: [tools] javac.exe
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Sounds good to me -- IMHO all our tools should be predominantly written
in Java, with cookie-cutter custom launchers.
Regards,
Tim
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We need one.
>
> I assume we'd want to do something like the launcher that invokes the VM
> and then just executes the eclipse compiler. However, now that I've
> typed this, it sounds awfully slow.... I guess we'll see. Would be
> nice to have something....
>
> Volunteers or comments?
>
> geir
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.