> To some extent -- that's the reason I'm asking my VM question. I think any > non-trivial runtime is VM envy.
I take this as a desire to make use of simpler high level constructs at the level of bytecodes. Please do pardon me for the gratuitous presumptions of the author's intentions in what follows. It seems plain to me that they are confident that a traditional machine, orthogonal to processors on the market, is and will be the definitive interface to the hardware in the greatest number of cases, and that MANY simplifications reaped from a consistent use of high level constructs can be had ex-post, i.e., from the compiler. (Interestingly enough, the future could hold for us a situation where the definitive interface to the hardware is reconfigurable logic, which, with present tools, pose complex enough a problem that it could make sense to simply implement some arbitrary machine. When that day comes or draws near, I guess that brucee would like to hear from you.) > Besides with JIT like capabilities you can > actually run faster in a VM setting. To effect, the same phenomenon has been observed, in, for example, [http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/vx32:usenix08-abs.html]. Nick P.S.: Perhaps some 9fans of the SF Bay Area would like to hash out in person some of the details this fuzzy message sorely lacks, regarding perhaps the implications for Plan9 at large in light of recent developments? I understand that many of us are still reeling, and it is best to shut up and calculate, but in the somewhat near future it could be good to coordinate to avoid duplicated efforts. For now it suffices to point out as an example, that the first one to write an acme in Go could see their code eventually reach more people than one potentially realizes. I dare not attempt such a task myself, lest I propagate my crap code.☺
