Subject:
|
RE: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 23:01:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
978 times
|
| |
|
|
Kekoa wrote:
<actually he wrote stuff here that I snipped out>
> 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.
Ah, a refreshing viewpoint :-) Getting concrete ideas and proposals
out makes sense. If you don't have the time to propose a CONCRETE idea
or plan, then you sure don't have time to implement one...
Kekoa should know. He proposed and wrote librcx...and disassembled the
ROM...and posted it for us to benefit from..and answers questions...and probably
even gets good grad student evaluations.
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.bmts.com/~rhempel/lego/pbFORTH/default.html>
--------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
------------------------------------------------------
|
|
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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
