Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?




"MSCHAEF.COM" <mschaef@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:peCdnWs7ud1Be-7eRVn-gg@xxxxxxxxx
>
> If you're writing a compiler for a totally new langauge, you have two
> options:
>
> * Write your compiler in the new language and then manually translate it
> to a language you can actually run.
>
> * Write a compiler for your new langauge in a langauge you can already
> run.
>
> A refinement of option 2 is you write a compiler for a subset of your new
> langauge in an existing language. You can then use that to bootstrap your
> real, self-hosting compiler.

So I take it the claim with the CFront compiler is "since C is a subset
of C++, if the CFront was written in C, then it was also written in C++"
type of deal? Fair enough.

> Microsoft has done this for a long time, but the Windows NT team made it
> most public. The theory was pretty simple: by integrating Windows NT into
> the Windows NT development process, WinNT developers would have more
> reason to make their stuff as stable and as reliable as possible.
>
> If the Java compiler team spends all their time coding the
> compiler/toolchsin in C, and test programs/etc. in Java, then are they
> really capable of making decisions about how the language is used in large
> scale systems? It's easy for me to unfairly second guess their choices,
> but I do wonder.
>
>> And what does it mean for an incentive to be "correct"?
>
> That's a matter of opinion. What I meant was that I want to use languages
> good enough that their designers and implementors want to use them too, in
> their daily work. That way, the pain I feel using their product, they
> feel. The ease of use I experience using their product, they experience.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.

- Oliver


.