Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:47:24 GMT
"MSCHAEF.COM" <mschaef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0PidnWpFnaK24-7eRVn-tQ@xxxxxxxxx
>
> 1] IIRC, the java compiler is itself written in C++. If true, that's
> not exactly a ringing endorsement of the language. (Even Microsoft knows
> to 'eat your own dogfood'. :-)
Two issues to raise here:
1) The first C++ compiler wasn't written in C++. (I believe, but am not
sure, that this can be generalized to "The first X compiler wasn't written
in X." for any X).
2) There now exists Java compilers written in Java. See, for example,
the SableCC project. http://sablecc.org/
- Oliver
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- References:
- Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Matthias Kaeppler
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Scott Moore
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Imre Palik
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Oliver Wong
- Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Prev by Date: Re: programming concepts > specific languages
- Next by Date: Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Previous by thread: Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Next by thread: Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|