Re: C to JVM, time to revive JGNAT?

["Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Am 09.08.2006, 21:13 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>:

> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:01:27 +0300, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
>> I think JGNAT, MGNAT and Interfaces.CPP are interesting technologies but
>> somehow undermaintained.
>>
>> While MGNAT seem to come along nicely both JGNAT and Interfaces.CPP are
>> stalled on a misseing code analyzer/generator for the needed thin
>> bindings. It is just to much work to create them by hand.
>>
>> And a last point: the gcj (GNU Compiler for Java) is coming along nicely
>> as well Interfaces.Java (interface to gcj) might be an alternative to
>> JGNAT.
>
> Well, that wouldn't give us JVM target, or?

gcj is dual target - binary and jvm.

> Having a naked Ada compiler
> into anything isn't much useful. Ada's run-time library is the thing that
> makes it useful.

Let's be honest here: the Java's runtime lib is a lot more powerfull then  
Ada's.

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik
krischik@users.sourceforge.net