[Visionaries] Re: dotnet platform support / gnu config.sub (long)

[Dalibor Topic]

Guido Draheim wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> > Guido Draheim wrote:
> >
> > > For the java machine, the term `jvm` is used universally. I do not
> > > remember there were any dependency on pointer lengths, it runs in
> > > managed mode always.
> >
> >
> >
> > JVM, JDK, Java, etc. are all trade marks with associated conditions of 
> > use. http://www.sun.com/suntrademarks/#J . Are you sure you want/need 
> > to use them?
>
>
> Yes. Actually, if the target is a java'ish machine then they will have to
> take care of any of that legalese themselves. The config.sub thing is not
> a java'ish thing itself here. - Furthermore, the use context is obviously
> talking about compatiblity with a certain vm type and not identity, as
> expressed in a lot of corners and we know that config.sub simply trying to
> get a "canonic" variant of certain arguments given. jvm, java and similar
> names _are_ the canonic variant of anything quite like it but not
> the product (trademark!) itself.

AFAIK sun has quite strict rules about claiming compatibility with any 
of their Java products. Basically, you can't do it, unless you shell out 
big bucks for a license to their code. But I may misunderstand what you 
want to say.

> No, I've been trying to get a decent cc list for dotnet targets as it is
> a platform target that can have C/C++ source code as input - IOW a target
> that can be different than the primary target of that software. That's not
> the same for java. - I was including java (and python) in the 
> description in
> an attempt to establish guidelines for (any) other VM-type target 
> platforms.

It's just that all those java'ish runtimes are all somehow different in 
my experience, so trying to put some kind of 'it's all mutually 
compatible java' cover on it doesn't really fit. A 'abstract 
machine'-'runtime' mapping only works as long as there are only a few 
runtimes available. In java's case, those days are long gone, and the 
number of options is quite huge, so fitting all of them under the same 
cap is quite complicated, if not impossible. I assume that in few years, 
c# will have the similar problem ;)

cheers,
dalibor topic