 | | Re: Some comments (long) —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | (...) You have reiterated exactly what I expected would be one of the most popular reasons to want to implement a JVM for the RCX. I hope you don't think I'm against what you're attempting to do... it's just that I, like Kekoa, believe that the (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | (...) Remember that Java's origins came from Oak, which was intended to operate a Universal remote control. JVM runs on many very tiny computers, and I am certain that a large subset of Java can be made to fit on the RCX and be a usable product. (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —Paul Speed
|
| | | | (...) For the record, up until recently I agreed with you. However, after hearing further discussions I think it is possible. The biggest hurdle is probably garbage collection since this is what causes Java's propensity to "gobble" memory. The class (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —stephen p spackman
|
| | | | (...) This is FUD. What causes Java to gobble memory is more likely (a) the amount of header overhead it places on objects (more to do with hashing support than gc, I suspect) and (b), to a lesser extent, the fact that objects are never "expanded" (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | (...) Java is not particularly space efficient (in typical implementations) for several reasons: 1) value stacks are stored as a union of all the types you can store in a variable, so you eat up at least 32 bits (64 on an implementation supporting (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —stephen p spackman
|
| | | | | | (...) Sure: one aspect of the "expanded" issue. (...) Well, dynamic loading, not late binding; this stuff would not be on the RCX - presumably almost all of the class loader remains on the host machine, with downloaded code pre-linked and (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —John A. Tamplin
|
| | | | | | Let's move this discussion to lego-robotics-rcx, since that group was created for discussions like these. (...) Late binding requires the symbol table or some representation of the same thing. For example, you have C inheriting from B inheriting (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | .rcx alternative firmware group/list —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) John and several other people are set up with the new group and successfully posting to it, so this info is for anyone else: lugnet.robotics.rcx is a newsgroup running on the lugnet.com newsserver and it is available via e-mail as (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | FWD: Re: Some comments (long) —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | (...) In environments which provide general purpose pointer types which can be assigned to addresses of explicitly allocated memory (like C and C++), garbage collection becomes an NP-hard problem. In environments which have no end-user accessible (...) (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —Paul Speed
|
| | | | (...) Hmmm... I guess I have to explain every little word I write so as not to get flamed. People fear Java on a small memory platform because when they run a JVM for any length of time on their Wintel boxes they see it slowly "gobble" more and more (...) (26 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
