Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM

[王在祥 <wa...@gmail.com>]

Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is 
possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET, Haskell, 
Smalltalk etc.

the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management, multi 
thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it can 
define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode can 
be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.

Re: Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM

[Rodrigo Kumpera <ku...@gmail.com>]

Harmony should be just a JVM. The runtime model between .NET and Java,
for example, is diferent enouth to be well harder than perform the
bytecode translation.
See IKVM, that run java bytecode on top of mono/.net. 

Rodrigo



On 5/13/05, Steve Heath <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> won't that all be a little complicated? The JVM runs bytecode, not
> Java itself. Isn't there an equivalent for .Net too? I don't know
> about languages such as Smalltalk, but I think their standard is the
> language itself, it's up to the interpreter to deal with it from
> there. I suspect will suggest we need a
> 
> Given the gulf between the structures of these languages and bytecode
> systems, is this thread suggesting a completely generic VM and having
> some kinda translator to move from bytecodes to Harmony-codes?
> 
> On 5/13/05, 王在祥 <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Agree.
> >
> > 2005/5/12, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > 王在祥 wrote:
> > > > Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is
> > > > possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET,
> > > Haskell,
> > > > Smalltalk etc.
> > > >
> > > > the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management,
> > > multi
> > > > thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it
> > > can
> > > > define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode
> > > can
> > > > be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.
> > >
> > > First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see
> > > what happens after we reach that goal.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stefano.
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM

[Steve Heath <st...@gmail.com>]

won't that all be a little complicated? The JVM runs bytecode, not
Java itself. Isn't there an equivalent for .Net too? I don't know
about languages such as Smalltalk, but I think their standard is the
language itself, it's up to the interpreter to deal with it from
there. I suspect will suggest we need a

Given the gulf between the structures of these languages and bytecode
systems, is this thread suggesting a completely generic VM and having
some kinda translator to move from bytecodes to Harmony-codes?

On 5/13/05, 王在祥 <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree.
> 
> 2005/5/12, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>:
> >
> > 王在祥 wrote:
> > > Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is
> > > possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET,
> > Haskell,
> > > Smalltalk etc.
> > >
> > > the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management,
> > multi
> > > thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it
> > can
> > > define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode
> > can
> > > be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.
> >
> > First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see
> > what happens after we reach that goal.
> >
> > --
> > Stefano.
> >
> >
>

Re: Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM

[王在祥 <wa...@gmail.com>]

Agree. 

2005/5/12, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>:
> 
> 王在祥 wrote:
> > Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is
> > possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET, 
> Haskell,
> > Smalltalk etc.
> >
> > the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management, 
> multi
> > thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it 
> can
> > define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode 
> can
> > be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.
> 
> First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see
> what happens after we reach that goal.
> 
> --
> Stefano.
> 
>

Re: Harmony may provide a more general VM than JVM

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

王在祥 wrote:
> Harmony is focus on provide a Tiger compatible JVM, but i think it is 
> possible to make it more general for other language such as .NET, Haskell, 
> Smalltalk etc.
> 
> the Harmony VM may define such a VM core, such as memory management, multi 
> thread support, object layout etc, that is general for most VM. also, it can 
> define a bytecode of itself as its native bytecode. then other bytecode can 
> be translate to the general bytecode and then JITed.

First things first. Writing a java JVM is a hard enough task. We'll see 
what happens after we reach that goal.

-- 
Stefano.