Let’s reinvent java bytecode but… different

  • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Have you seen what it outputs? The same way we can compile C to brainfuck, it doesn’t mean it’s good or is useful.

    • onlinepersonaOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago
      • “compiling C to java bytecode isn’t possible”
      • *link to project that does exactly that*
      • “it’s not good or useful”
      • *WASM exists*
      • “that’s useful”

      … OK

      Anti Commercial AI thingy

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

      • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I can’t quite understand what is your point? Are you arguing that both JVM and WASM are bad? With this I agree, they both have terrible performance and in an ideal world we wouldn’t use any of them.

        Are you arguing that JVM bytecode is better than WASM? That’s objectively not true. One example is a function pointer in C. To compile it to JVM bytecode you would need to convert it to the virtual call using some very roundabout way. But in WASM you have native support for function pointers, which gives much better flexibility when compiling other languages.

        • onlinepersonaOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is no point. It’s a stupid meme, not to be taken seriously in a “programmerhumor” community. It’s about as serious as demanding the Biden be the arbiter of good and bad programming languages, or saying JS should be used to punish convicts.

          Look at the other people saying stuff like “JAVA: Just Another Virtual Assembler” or something. They aren’t taking it seriously.

          Anti Commercial AI thingy

          CC BY-NC-SA 4.0