Re: Plans for 2.8 - GNOME Managed Language Services?

[Ryan McDougall <ryan mcdougall telusplanet net>]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 18:22 -0800, Shahms E. King wrote:

> In terms of the Java/C# debate, the way things stand now with ikvm and
> mono, any components written for the JVM can be used by the CLR crowd
> with relative ease while the opposite may not be the case.  This leads
> to an interesting problem, given the popularity of the JVM and ikvm's
> ability to translate it for the CLR, it's logical that the JVM and Java
> should probably be adopted.  However, the one-way flow of effort implies
> a wider variety of options appearing on the CLR side (Dashboard, for
> example).  

The JVM is the VM designed only for use with Java. The CLR is a standard
which is designed to be used with any compliant language. The technical
difference between the two designs may be insurmountable, or it may be
trivial, I don't know well enough. However, it appears to me that when
creating a platform for hosting multiple managed languages, it makes the
most sense to use a system designed to do so. AFAIC the fact that MS
"invented" ECMA CLR and CLI has no relevance on the discussion.
Therefore I don't follow why Java+JVM should be adopted given it would
be non-trivial shoehorn other languages on top of a system that was
never designed to take it. 

I guess you feel that if an app was written in Java, any VM could run
it, which belies the assumption that what we want is a *language*, and
what people are concerned about is the VM *implementation*. I think its
the other way around. We want people to be able to use any language they
prefer (for their own apps, not for core libs), and have it integrate
with GNOME as a first class system (ie: just as well as if it was
written in C), and to me the implementation of the system that allows
this to happen is secondary to the ability itself. I fail to see why Sun
would balk if we made moves to include Java in GNOME, despite the fact
that we are using a VM that was originally designed for .NET, since I
think they should prefer that to never including Java (beyond bindings).

Since Havoc is the one most concerned about fragmentation, I think the
onus is on him to state exactly what parties have what concerns, before
we can decide whether we want the language, the platform, both, or
neither.

> 
> If someone were to write a CLR -> JVM translator the point largely
> becomes moot (except as relates to the "Maintainer Problem").  Whether
> to ship JVM or CLR binaries is then up to the distribution.  Sun and IBM
> can ship the JVM compiled binaries, Novell the CLR.  Admittedly, both
> cases depend on the completeness of the underlying Java/.NET
> implementation.

Once again, this boils down to the question, "Do we want to be the
language or the platform?"

>
> -- 
> --Shahms

Cheers,
Ryan