Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 22:22:33 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@liveonthenet/Spamcake/.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1332 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 3 May 1999, Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
> I don't deny that these are reasonable things to want. But you don't need
> the JVM to get these. The problem with the JVM is that there is so much
> extra fluff associated with Java. You mentioned 64-bit floats and ints,
> security, etc. Why start with a JVM that is much too complicated for our
> needs and strip it down so it's appropriate for the RCX? My contention is
> that we building a new byte code interpreter from the ground up is simpler,
> faster, and better. No doubt, it can take inspiration for features from
> Java or whatever, but it should not be or start out as the JVM.
All I am saying is that there will be no existing product that does
exactly what everyone wants. However, I think it is worth considering JVM
as a starting point close to what we want since it represents a huge body
of solid code.
> I would argue that the "standard" byte code has native support for
> interfacing with the RCX. The new byte code should have similar support
> built-in.
Clearly, the native support of the standard bytecode is limited, or else
we wouldn't be talking about this project. I think there is a higher level
of abstraction required to do more with it, which would require interaction
with tasking mechanisms to make this useful.
> In any event, rather than argue whether or not the JVM is the right thing
> for the RCX, I instead propose people start tossing out their ideas as to
> what might features might be nice to have in a new byte code/machine model.
> Then whoever wants to can sift through these ideas and come up with a
> more-concrete design for a next-generation system.
Well, this is discussing one particular idea for "next generation" system.
John A. Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Maybe the JVM is, in spirit, close to what we want; but can you honestly say that porting the JVM to the RCX will be easier than writing something from scratch, perhaps using some of the better features of the JVM as inspiration? I personally (...) (26 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I don't deny that these are reasonable things to want. But you don't need the JVM to get these. The problem with the JVM is that there is so much extra fluff associated with Java. You mentioned 64-bit floats and ints, security, etc. Why start (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
