[dev-tools] was Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)

[Mark Brooks <jm...@hotmail.com>]

>If we are going to entertain writing most of the JVM in a type-safe
>language, we should also consider the proposed ECMA C++/CLI.  From
>what I understand, it standardizes a form of type-safe C++.  It has
>the promise of keeping both the Java and C camps happy.

Not really.  First, it is a Microsoft thing, tied in with .NET.  Second, we 
don't want to have to depend on a .NET runtime to get a Java runtime.  
Third, never try to implement a large and  complex existing project in a 
brand new technology.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: [dev-tools] was Re: Against using Java to implement Java (Was: Java)

[FaeLLe <mr...@gmail.com>]

So have to agree with Mark...........

Making a JVM in a .NET language this deserves a ......... LOL

Sorry if i sound out of order had to do it :s

On 5/19/05, Mark Brooks <jm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >If we are going to entertain writing most of the JVM in a type-safe
> >language, we should also consider the proposed ECMA C++/CLI. From
> >what I understand, it standardizes a form of type-safe C++. It has
> >the promise of keeping both the Java and C camps happy.
> 
> Not really. First, it is a Microsoft thing, tied in with .NET. Second, we
> don't want to have to depend on a .NET runtime to get a Java runtime.
> Third, never try to implement a large and complex existing project in a
> brand new technology.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> 


-- 
www.FaeLLe.com <http://www.FaeLLe.com>