On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 08:41:38AM -0700, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> In message <20050917113345.E874F83836 at sarg.ryerson.ca>
>           Dave Mason <dmason at sarg.ryerson.ca> wrote:
> 
> > I am working on a high-quality static compiler that currently accepts
> > Java class files as input.  I have a Masters student looking for a
> > project, and I was thinking that it might not be *too* much work to
> > re-target VMMaker to generate Java or Java class files.  This would
> > possibly make squeak even more portable, and would provide a good
> > test-bed for my compiler.
> > 
> > Opinions (pro and con, technical and philosophical) welcome.
> 
> Urk. Please, no.
> 
> For a start, it wouldn't make Squeak even more portable (to the best of
> my knowledge) since Squeak has been ported to just about every machine
> that ever existed. I'm not entirely certain but I think the Difference
> Engine at the London Science Museum managed 3+4 doit :-)
> 
> Next, consider the appalling overheads. So far as I can work out the
> typical java vm and support libraries appear to occupy many hundreds of
> megabytes.
> 
> <sounds of tim banging head on desk and weeping 'make it go away, oh
> the pain, the humanity'>

but it *would* be nice to do a BCPL code generator for slang, don't you think?

Dave