Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: torb...@diku.dk (Torben Ęgidius Mogensen)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:40:03 +0200
Local: Tues, May 29 2012 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the JVM as a compilation Target?
BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> writes:
A few more:
> maybe trying for a small list here: > lack of unsigned operations; > lack of pointers; > lack of function or method references; > lack of variable references (need not be pointers); > lack of a lexical environment; > lack of good dynamic types; > lack of package-scoped declarations; > lack of operators over object types; > lack of pass-by-value / structure types; > lack of RAII or similar; > lack of a good C FFI. - Lack of proper tail calls.
This can be implemented using trampolines, but this is inefficient
- Lack of non-nullable reference types.
Object/reference types are implicitly always nullable, though it is
- Lack of structural type equivalence.
This means that you have to resort to kludges when implementing pair
- Lack of parametric polymorphism.
Generics is currently implemented with type erasure to Object and
- Lack of an unbounded integer type.
Though this can be implemented using JVM primitives, it is slow and
- Inefficient exception handling.
This was a real limitation for some students that tried to implement
This is what I could think off at the top of my head, but I'm sure more
Torben
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||