Re:Charlie Nutter's Response to "Why Not A Bytecode Vm"
by kkowalczyk on Friday December 23, 2011 @02:02AM
(#3384969)
Except all his argument are by proxy.
Is it not true that "the JVM assumes you want classes, single dispatch, inheritance, and primitives. It assumes you don't need 32-bit unsigned math." ?
Is it not true that "adding new bytecodes increases the complexity of VM? That to add "all possible languages a VM needs to support a multitude of calling conventions: tail calls, optional arguments, rest arguments, keyed arguments, overloaded methods, and so on" ?
Is it not true that "jvm specifies a class file format, a concurrency model (in the case of the JVM threads with shared state), class initialization, and a bunch of other stuff that nails down semantic choices." ?
Those are the actual "assertions" made by Dart paper. Which of those facts about jvm Nutter actually countered?
Is it not true that "the JVM assumes you want classes, single dispatch, inheritance, and primitives. It assumes you don't need 32-bit unsigned math." ?
Is it not true that "adding new bytecodes increases the complexity of VM? That to add "all possible languages a VM needs to support a multitude of calling conventions: tail calls, optional arguments, rest arguments, keyed arguments, overloaded methods, and so on" ?
Is it not true that "jvm specifies a class file format, a concurrency model (in the case of the JVM threads with shared state), class initialization, and a bunch of other stuff that nails down semantic choices." ?
Those are the actual "assertions" made by Dart paper. Which of those facts about jvm Nutter actually countered?