• Boris Kolar <boris.kolar globera.com> May 02 2007
• Trish Jones <trishjo gmail.com> May 02 2007

Boris Kolar <boris.kolar globera.com> writes:

lubosh Wrote:
 Do we really need yet another layer between hardware and our code? 


Both JVM and CLR (.NET) are badly designed. Both platforms are too tightly tied
to Java and C# languages. They are too bloated to provide sufficient security
guarantees or performance gains.

Fundamentally, we don't need another layer between hardware and code. But since
design of our typical hardware (like x86) is not very good either, VM can
actually improve both performance (hardware sandboxing, for example, does not
perform very well and doesn't allow enough granularity) and security (native
code is extremely difficult to analyze from security point of view). VM then
basically becomes what your hardware should be.

I'm generally in favor of lightweight VMs that hide hardware deficiencies and
differences. Such VM can improve code compactness, allow for more aggressive
inlining, provide security and reliability guarantees,... Another significant
advantage is that it would greatly reduce complexity of generating code at
runtime (and generally promote a more layered approach to computation, like
Lisp-like features). 

Trish Jones <trishjo gmail.com> writes:

Have you checked out the work of Ian Piumarta? He has done some very intersting
work on 'live' compilation of dynamic languages to native code. He is currently
working with Alan Kay on their next generation smalltalk, but the technology
seems to be applicable to most languages.

Links to a lot of info can be found in this blog post:
http://www.equi4.com/jcw/files/bcf5635ccbc5b6ab916a38ef7aaa844b-139.html

Boris Kolar Wrote:
 Both JVM and CLR (.NET) are badly designed. Both platforms are too tightly
tied to Java and C# languages. They are too bloated to provide sufficient
security guarantees or performance gains.
 
 Fundamentally, we don't need another layer between hardware and code. But
since design of our typical hardware (like x86) is not very good either, VM can
actually improve both performance (hardware sandboxing, for example, does not
perform very well and doesn't allow enough granularity) and security (native
code is extremely difficult to analyze from security point of view). VM then
basically becomes what your hardware should be.
 
 I'm generally in favor of lightweight VMs that hide hardware deficiencies and
differences. Such VM can improve code compactness, allow for more aggressive
inlining, provide security and reliability guarantees,... Another significant
advantage is that it would greatly reduce complexity of generating code at
runtime (and generally promote a more layered approach to computation, like
Lisp-like features).