Michael Matz - Re: java bytecode considered bad Re: java bytecode considered bad
To: Trent Waddington
Subject: Re: java bytecode considered bad
From: Michael Matz
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:24:14 0100 (MET)
cc: Gerald Pfeifer , Fergus Henderson ,



Hi,

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Trent Waddington wrote:
> > I don't see why we should want to reduce the functionality for users of
> > GCC to avoid that; unless I miss something, that is.
> >
>
> finally, the voice of sanity.

Well, in case you haven't noticed. Most of us are not of the opinion of
RMS on this topic (this special one, using JBC as IL; not generally the
fear of having a feasible IL, which some share with him).

> If you were going to choose an intermediate language to dump to
> proprietory backend's, wouldn't a low level C be more useful than JBC?

I think neither JBC nor C are feasible ILs, because too much information
is lost, and e.g. C allows things which makes a mapping from another
language to C unnecessarily inefficient, when compiled from that "IL"
(e.g. pointers).


Ciao,
Michael.