From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f79bb,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf79bb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a640,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a640,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java Date: 1996/10/28 Message-ID: <5532ci$f8i@gaia.ns.utk.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 193035404 references: <550sm2$sn1@buggy.news.easynet.net> <3274D523.5C06@netright.com> followup-to: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.sather,comp.object,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.clos,fr.comp.objet organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Oak Ridge National Laboratory reply-to: %%spam repellent: remove this prefix%%kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.sather,comp.object,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.clos,fr.comp.objet Date: 1996-10-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Hanley (david@netright.com) wrote: : Jean-Michel P. Decombe wrote: : > : > In article <550sm2$sn1@buggy.news.easynet.net>, Sacha@easynet.fr (Vincent : > WEBER) wrote: : > : > > different). So... Why don't Eiffel and Java merge ?? Maybe it would be a grat : > : > I believe that Java is not the death of other languages. Java demonstrates : > that it's possible to write a language which is really : > platform-independent and "distributed". Nothing prevents Meyer from : > writing a new version of Eiffel, totally portable and based on a Virtual : > Machine, then port this VM on a large number of platforms, including a : > JITC, etc. With the promise of a true platform-independent language, I'm : > sure a good number of people would be willing to try it, including myself. : > The only problem that remains would be a possible inclusion of this VM in : > major browsers. But I believe most browsers will become very customizable : > and won't be restricted to Java in the future, plus they will eventually : > merge in the OS anyway... : I suppose this would work, but I think it would make a lot more sense : to simply compile eiffel to java byte codes. If he were to do this, he : could, : with very little work, have eiffel available on a large numer of : platforms : (os/2, windows, unix, mac ) immediately, and take advantage of a lot of : work : alredy done by other people. What is critically important is that the semantics of the common Java libraries and object distribution formats (for instance even Java RMI--'emote method invocation'---in reality full distributed objects), in the JVM are two-way-compatible with this Eiffel implementation. Java is important because of the JVM and the presumed availability of a rich set of services across many computers. Fortunately it seems that much of Java's semantics is a subset of Eiffel's. Tough parts which must be addressed are garbage collection compatibility (i.e. references from Eiffel-side to Java side and back must be collected as 'one'), finalization, and signatures for exceptions. I recently recieved an announcement from a computer science group at MIT about a proposal for parameterized generic types for Java. : dave -- Matthew B. Kennel/mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/ I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE, |================================== I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN, |The US Government does not like I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST, |spam either. It is ILLEGAL! I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H, |USC Title 47, section 227 I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE, |p (b)(1)(C) www.law.cornell.edu/ I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE, | /uscode/47/227.html I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM! |================================== M A D - I - A M!