Re: [DotGNU]Re: Support Java for .GNU

[Kent Nguyen]

On Wednesday 18 July 2001 08:41, Martin Coxall wrote:
> > Let me suggest a combination of (a) and (b).
> > Start with Java bytecode, the Java language and the Java libraries.
>
> Java is encumbered by Sun's licensing. It would be a *very* bad move to use
> it as the core of Arch.

Hi.

May I be so bold to say: we don't need Mono.  I'm so curious as to why people 
are soo fascinated with runtime bytecode interpreter.  This is one way to 
slow the system down.  The only advantage is cross platform, but is C# cross 
platform?  Does C# run on Linux?  Does C# run on FreeBSD?  Does C# run on 
BeOS?  Does C# run on CP/M?  Does C# run on QNX?  Does C# run on Commodore 
64?  Does C# run on MacOS?  Does C# run on OSX? Does C# run on HP-UX?  Does 
C# run on Solaris? ... how many years will it take to write a runtime 
bytecode interpreter for all those environments?  It took Sun 6 years to 
write JVM for most but not all of those platforms I've listed.  Even Sun 
hasn't perfected their JVM for all OS.  FreeBSD's JVM support is falling 
behind big time!  It's pratically in a very crappy state.  There's only two 
guys who are actively working on the port of JVM to FreeBSD, and they are all 
paid by WindRivers.  Even PHP has a better chance of portability.  Why not 
write a runtime bytecode interpreter for PHP?  

So what about C#?  C# only runs on Windows.  And it is Microsoft vengance 
against Sun and their attempt to dominate the server-side.  That's all!  I 
don't think even with the amount of resource Microsoft has, that all the 
platforms on earth will run C#.  In addition C# uses some native calls.  
Imagine that you can even write device driver using C#?  You think writing a 
device driver on Windows using C# will work on BSD, Linux, MacOS, HP-UX, 
etc.?  It might happen, but it will take years of development to achieve that 
goal. 

What I'm proposing now is a "general exchange".  In a general exchange, 
components can talk to one another seaminglilessly.  Those who are used to 
writing EJB can still write EJB.  Those who are used to writing KParts can 
still write KParts.  Those who are used to writing COM can still write COM.  
Those who are used to writing Bonobo can still write Bonobo.  Those who are 
used to writing WebObject can still write WebObject.  The only thing they 
need to learn extra is GXMP (Assuming everyone agrees to GXMP as the standard 
protocol).

So this is how a general exchange looks like:
http://www.mslinux.com/research/exchange.png

I can write GXMP interface for KParts, EJB, and PHP.  I'm not too familiar 
with COM, Bonobo, or WebObject.  If anyone wants to tackle that part let me 
know.  

I'll write up a design for a general exchange soon. :)

Things are getting very exciting.  

Cheers!
--kent