From: Warren Harris <warren@metaweb.com>
To: forum@x9c.fr
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] OCaml-Java project: 1.1 release
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:21:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <84762F8F-9615-47D8-A5A1-BBAA7982E6B3@metaweb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <265612EB-D831-4993-9B43-6BEE42A3831B@x9c.fr>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2026 bytes --]
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:17 AM, forum@x9c.fr - forum@x9c.fr wrote:
>
> Your (dual) suggestion of compilation of Java sources
> into either OCaml sources of OCaml binaries for ocamlrun
> (or even interpretation of Java bytecode) is interesting.
> The Java language is clearly easy to parse, type, and
> compile. However, the runtime support library would
> be quite large (listing only the first items that come to
> mind):
> - implementation of a 'native' method from the JDK;
As the original designer of the Java native method mechanism (JRI at
netscape which became JNI at Sun)... I'll be the first to say that I'd
be very happy to write all my native methods using ocaml's methodology.
>
> - explicit encoding of the algorithm for message dispatch;
> - explicit encoding of elements need by the reflection
> mechanism.
Reflection is another feature of Java that one could get pretty far
without. Certainly when porting an application to a new VM this would
be a consideration, but when developing a new application, there are
simple alternatives that avoid much of the need for reflection.
>
> At the opposite, the Java compiler performs the bare minimum
> checks. Then, at runtime the bytecode is verified before
> execution. More, through the security manager some
> checks are done at runtime to verify if the JVM is allowed
> to access a file, open a network connection, etc.
> All these runtime checks are obiously needed to grant the
> user that some code will not harm its computer (e.g. inside
> applets).
Java's focus on downloaded applet security and JIT compilation made a
lot of sense in the browser world, but is somewhat useless in a server
context, which is where most java applications are deployed today. I
think that a server-only subset of Java could make a lot of sense,
particularly in conjunction with a VM such as ocaml's that provides
superior performance and footprint. I think many developers would
happily sacrifice a few language features for performance.
Warren
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3739 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-12 2:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-09 20:05 forum
2008-11-09 20:38 ` [Caml-list] " Warren Harris
2008-11-11 16:17 ` forum
2008-11-12 2:21 ` Warren Harris [this message]
2008-11-12 12:29 ` forum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=84762F8F-9615-47D8-A5A1-BBAA7982E6B3@metaweb.com \
--to=warren@metaweb.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=forum@x9c.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox