Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 22:03:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
940 times
|
| |
|
|
Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
> My thoughts on the JVM:
>
> - too complicated for what we need or want
> - no direct support for interfacing with the RCX
>
> I envision the new byte code being specific to the RCX, and as simple as
> possible to get the job done, which is the exact opposite of the JVM in
> those regards.
Thank you. Kekoa.
I was starting to think I was completely alone in my attitudes.
Just a couple of comments on what I think a new byte code should do or be
1) It should resemble machine language. The commands in the bytecode
should be low-level enough to not be representative of any high-level language
in particular. Further, the bytecode set should be sufficient to be able to
implement any general algorithm (i.e. not rcx-specific) about as easily as it
would be implemented in a machine language.
2) There should be no facet of rcx-specific behaviour that cannot be done
through some sequence of these bytecodes. The rcx-specific opcodes should be
kept to the barest minimum but still be sufficient enough that it does not
restrict what can be done with the rcx hardware wit a reasonable number of
instructions.
3) The bytecode interpreter could contain floating point emulation (This
one's not so important in my opinion because it may prove to be more difficult
than it's worth) .
I believe that a bytecode set that follows these guidelines will make it very
feasible for high level language compilers to be developed, and perhaps even
multiple languages
> > Mark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Basically what you are talking about at this level is an interpreted machine language. The only benefit you get from interpreting it rather than running directly on the hardware is that you can catch errors. However, if the bytecodes are (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) My thoughts on the JVM: - too complicated for what we need or want - no direct support for interfacing with the RCX I envision the new byte code being specific to the RCX, and as simple as possible to get the job done, which is the exact (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
67 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
