HP3000-L Archives

October 1996, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael I Yawn <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael I Yawn <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:29:53 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Ken Sletten b894 c332 x62525 ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: Plus I invite others to join the agitation for HP to
: encourage (i.e.:  provide some $) for a serious
: investigation into whether or not it is feasible to
: "front end" Java on the GNU C++ compiler on the
: 3000.  If it is technically feasible, then go for it.

I'm curious about the very specific way in which you're
asking for "faster Java on the 3000", and wanted to find
out if there were any specific reasons you chose this
implementation.

Two questions: Why native compilation, rather than a
Just-in-Time compiler, and second, why the GNU C++
back-end?

On the first topic, those of us working on Java internally
seem to be unanimously agreed that we would prioritize a
JIT ahead of a native compiler.  We don't yet have good data
on what the relative performance of javac vs. jit vs. native
compilers is / will be; but the JIT has the (to my mind,
overwhelming) advantage of preserving Java's "write once,
deploy anywhere" model: that is, you don't need access to
the source code to run a Java class through the just-in-time
compiler.  Some folks on the java newsgroups even seem to
think that JITs may outperform native compilers over the
long term, because there's no limit to how specific they
can be (code can be optimized for your specific processor,
for a start; but then can also consider your I/O speeds,
memory configuration, the transaction mix you execute, etc.
Note that today's JITs do none of these things, this is just
a bunch of Java dweebs blue-skying the possibilities)

On the second topic, we have at least kicked around the
possibility of a native compiler, and while one of the
possibilities is to base it on GNU, at least one of the
possibilities is to base it on something else.  Is there
a reason why 'something else' is inherently inferior?

Mike


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Yawn
Hewlett-Packard                      email       [log in to unmask]
Commercial Systems Division          Voice         (408) 447-4367
19447 Pruneridge Ave M/S 47UA        Fax           (408) 447-4441
Cupertino, CA  95014
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2