Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 May 1999 08:29:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1060 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Kekoa Proudfoot writes:
> 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.
I say Java is the way to go, actually I am planning to do a JVM for the RCX.
The JVM is not necessarily complex, It is possible to do a subset, SUN already
does that with the JavaCard specification (that is Java running on smartcards).
This specification rules out things like floats, ints, Strings, Threads,
garbage collection, ...
some of them we probably need to put back in like threads (and maybe gc).
And like in the JavaCard specification some of the stuff that comprise the JVM
does not need to run on the target computer (RCX in our case), the bytecode
verifier and the resolver can be run on the computer which downloads the
classes to the target (the specification does not require dynamic class loading
either).
I have been using five different implementations of the JavaCard specification
by now, and they all seems to work really well.
Offcourse we need to define some RCX specific System classes which will access
the RCX specific functions, but that should not be a problem.
Regards Søren
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) JavaCard is highly specialized to a SmartCard application. As far as I know, the only way to communicate with a JavaCard interpreter is through the ISO APDU mechanism. You also don't have computation running in the background, since applets (...) (25 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
