Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 May 1999 20:04:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1667 times
|
| |
|
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@liveonthenet.com> wrote:
> Don't forget writing the bytecode interpreter. With JVM, we just have to
> port that. Writing a bytecode interpreter that is fast, general purpose,
> supports multithreading & synchronization etc. is no small task.
???
I think you are making a new interpreter sound harder than it really is.
The standard firmware might not be incredibly fast, but it certainly
supports multithreading, and synchronization wouldn't be hard to add. The
only challenging thing to add, mainly because it requires forethought, will
be variable support. And the majority of the work will not be adding
better variable support but instead duplicating the functionality of the
current firmware, for which we have pseudocode to possibly use as a guide
but no source at this time.
I (still) think porting the JVM and making it usable is a harder task than
bringing up a custom, RCX-specific byte code interpreter. If you (you
being anybody reading this who disagrees with me) think you have the
knowledge and the capability to port the JVM and hack it to interface
nicely with the RCX, I urge you to prove me wrong. The proof is in the
pudding, I'll believe it when I see it, the devil is in the details: they
all apply here.
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I think the basic issue here is we have different ideas in what we want in this interpreted language. You seem to want something closer to the current bytecode, while I want something closer to Java/C++. Certainly if you lower the requirements (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Don't forget writing the bytecode interpreter. With JVM, we just have to port that. Writing a bytecode interpreter that is fast, general purpose, supports multithreading & synchronization etc. is no small task. (...) Java would not be used for (...) (26 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
|
|
