fyi... non of the bytecode machines made much headway; once you get above a certain (actually fairly small) size device you can afford a tiny JIT - and even a trivial JIT instantly blows away pure bytecode interpreters; to the point that the energy consumed is actually less even counting the JIT cost against you because the resulting code is so much better.
Other things a JVM gives you: - Code gen & Register allocation - A reliable multi-threaded Memory Model, which otherwise varies from platform to platform, and even within just X86 systems - *fairly* reliable performance; obviously Clojure is walking the edge here - Already mentioned: OS interface, GC/memory allocation, Security, Vast pre-existing libs - Steady engineering providing continuous incremental gains Cliff On Jan 18, 9:31 am, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
