Yeah, but I was talking about hosting java class files in the squeak vm.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 05:21  PM, athiele at charter.net wrote:

> I hate to stiffle creativity, but Java in my opinion is bloated, 
> slow,and
> poorly designed. I have used Java for years, and have grown to hate it
> more and more. Squeak on the JVM would be a Huge performance hit.
> Look at Jython vs. Python. Above remember who dictates Java (tm) 
> policy.
>
> Adrian
>
> From: tblanchard at mac.com
> Date: Tue Nov 12, 2002  5:15:42  PM Europe/Paris
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Porting Squeak to Java VM
> Reply-To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>
>
>
> Derek Brans <brans at nerdonawire.com> wrote:
>> Any thought been given to this?
>> Would that give us "Squeak in a web-browser" without a plug-in, among
>> other things?
>
> Boring.  Also, not a particularly good fit.
>
> What might be more entertaining is to write a java class loader in 
> squeak that loaded a java class definition (bytecodes) and translated 
> it into an equivalent Squeak class (loading and translating all 
> dependent classes as well).  There's an awful lot of java code being 
> written - some of it might be worth leveraging.
>
> Most of it probably isn't.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
>
>