I see. From wikipedia: "A Jazelle-aware Java Virtual Machine<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Virtual_Machine>(JVM) will attempt to run Java bytecodes in hardware, while returning to the software for more complicated, or lesser-used bytecode operations. ARM claim that approximately 95% of bytecode in typical program usage ends up being directly processed in the hardware."
That's awesome. Also, I've only read the title and skimmed here, so far, but it seems relevant: http://blogs.vmware.com/performance/2008/08/esx-runs-java-v.html On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a great argument. I need arguments like these. I work with people > who dismiss JVM. Even though there are many non-Sun JVM's, folks say, "Sun > is dead -> java is dead -> jvm is dead." ..... even though Java is the most > popular language right now. > http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html > > I wonder if there will ever be a JM ... that is a chip that natively > executes byte code. I wonder what they'd have to say, then. I think I'll > do a Google search. I also wonder if it was a tough decision for Rich to > cut the CLI support. I know he feels fine looking back. > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Mark H. <mark.hoem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 16, 6:47 am, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code? >> >> I'll chime in too to say that x86 is only king of the desktop / laptop >> world -- many portable devices are ARM-based (and a lot of Windows >> apps run on ARM), and there are other architectures used for >> enterprise and HPC servers. Plus it's not clear to me that x86 will >> win, esp. in power-constrained arenas. (All those legacy instructions >> and the translation from x86 ops into reasonable microops eat power >> and area.) I've dealt with at least six different instruction sets in >> my HPC work and the JVM runs on at least five of them: instant >> portability! >> >> mfh >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
