[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Don't Be Soft On Microsoft



> Theoritically one can also write a standard Java compiler that will copmile
> the Java bytecode into a machine binary, store it on disk (with some 
> other extension than ".class") and then run it from there. That way the 
> program will be fast as soon after the initial compilation had taken 
> place. Since, compiling can be a lengthy process, (as evident from watch 
> GCC, but Java bytecode may take faster to compile) it can save a lot of 
> time on subsequent uses.

Right. Just-in-time is just that, except it is accepted that a binary
would not be kept on the hard drive but generated from the bytecode
before run-time, since that model is much more suited to Internet applets 
(download compile and run instead of download and interpret). But your 
model is also very correct, especially for a real application used
everyday on a computer, such as an office suite.

> The Just-in-time compilers you mention and the standard compilers I 
> suggested in a way cancel the niche of Java's system-independency, 
> because you still need a separate compiler for every platform.

Wrong. They will not cancel any niche of system-independency. Already
today, in order to run Java binaries one needs a Java interpreter which
is definitely system-dependant. Why would adding a compiler to the package
make it any more system-dependant? In fact, writing bytecode-to-binary
compiler seems very simple to me since you simply have to mimick the
behaviour of the interpreter when it comes to syntax, processing and 
everything else.

Shay

--
Shay Rojansky, roji@cs.huji.ac.il                 Finger for PGP public key



References: