Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 23:08:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1104 times
|
| |
|
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@liveonthenet.com> wrote:
> 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.
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 think I have a very good idea of what it will
take to write new firmware from scratch. It isn't that much work in my
opinion, especially considering all the work it took getting to the point
where writing replacement firmware is even possible.
> > 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.
Right now, in my opinion, the features are the key part to get out in the
open at this time. If there are specific features of the JVM you really
like (and I presume there are many), I would like to hear about them. But
if all you have to say is, (paraphrasing) "the JVM rocks!", you should know
better than that, those sorts of statements are not very useful to anybody.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I guess it depends on what you want in your firmware. I have been working on my own object-oriented kernel, and I have written an object-oriented kernel for an embedded I/O controller before, and it is a big job. That is just the OS, not (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) 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. (...) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
