Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

>> > Right now, Java and limbo  are in the same position of external
>> > tools artificially brought in. 
>> > 
>> I'm not the only one to believe that this is intentional, touted as an
>> advantage in both instances.  Or do you use the GNU Java compiler for
>> your development (don't shoot me, I know precious little about it)?
> 
> No, I don't think it is an advantage, as it is a feature of
> many other languages as well.  GNU Java compiler does not make
> any difference. I don't mean compiling limbo into object code.
> I mean  making *VM a part of the system. I want it to
> be loaded once and retain state. I want it to be a service,
> not an application.
> 
Abstracting the language from the operating system is critical to
portability.  And portability has yet to be knocked (the way
object-oriented paradigm and multithreading have been) as a bad thing.

As for running the VM as a service, you have to choose between the
namespace being something the VM inherits or something the VM
manipulates.  Where the namespace is the most critical resources in
the Plan 9 environment and is largely what sets Inferno apart from the
neutral environment the Java VM supplies (and, in my opinion,
unsuccessfully attempts to enhance with crippling security
"features").

It seems to me that on this forum the consensus is that the ability to
manipulate the namespace is something special Plan 9 and Inferno do
and none of us would consider sacrificing it without just cause.

The Inferno environment itself may not be perfect, but access to the
sources allows one to configure it to one's tastes.  The same is never
going to apply to the Java VM because it always depends on the
underlying platform.  Now, perhaps I ought to ask you to explain why
you'd prefer the Inferno VM to be different from its present form and
how you'd prefer it to be or, to be nasty, what's stopping you from
shaping it to your requirements.

++L