HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
ffconsultancy.com
HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#2"""
The ability to interoperate safely and at a high-level between different languages, from managed C++ to F#, has greatly accelerated development on the Microsoft platform. The resulting libraries, like Windows Presentation Foundation, are already a generation ahead of anything available on any other platform.
Linux and Mac OS X do not currently have the luxury of a solid foundation like the CLR. Consequently, they are composed entirely from uninteroperable components written in independent languages, from unmanaged custom C++ dialects to Objective C and Python.
"""
And that's the problem they're trying to solve. Bring some C# Microsoft love to poor dated OS X (and the like).
I abstain.
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#3I'm curious: what about the JVM?
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#4The virtues of the CLR are (rightly) extolled for Windows, then the lack of the CLR on Linux/OS X is cited as one justification for the HLVM. Mono is alive and well on those two platforms (notwithstanding hate from the GNU/Stallman camp).
Not to start another thread, but I agree with his point on WPF being a generation ahead of similar technologies on other platforms. I hope we see work start on that at some point for Mono (running on OpenGL, for example).
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#5I love OCaml, which this virtual machine says it is based upon, but doesn't it have issues with multi-core processors? That is, doesn't it suffer from a limitation due to its garbage collector?
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#6Interesting exercise, but of little use: this is solving (well, trying to) a political problem with more technology. JVM is already on the table, let's use that.
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#7I love OCaml, which this virtual machine says it is based upon, but doesn't it have issues with multi-core processors? That is, doesn't it suffer from a limitation due to its garbage collector?
I have no idea, but I've just upvoted you back to 1. If someone knows more / better please post here and explain rather than anonymously downvote, which doesn't explain anything to anyone.
[edit: ah, ok, to expand on what 45g said, ocaml is used to build the tools, but anything that targets the HLVM will end up using LLVM for runtime code generation - so it will either compile to assembly, or use a JIT VM. either way, any limitations in ocaml will only affect the tools, not the final compiled program]
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#8I'm curious: what about the JVM?
Kind of like Java in general, the JVM sits in the middle ground. LLVM is a good starting point for building low level languages (although nothing prevents you from writing high level languages in it, you just have write more). The HLVM is supposed to be a good starting point for building high level languages with things like garbage collection, closures, tail call elimination, etc. The JVM isn't the fastest for low level applications and isn't the easiest for high level functional languages.
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#9""" The ability to interoperate safely and at a high-level between different languages, from managed C++ to F#, has greatly accelerated development on the Microsoft platform. The resulting libraries, like Windows Presentation Foundation, are already a generation ahead of anything available on any other platform. Linux and Mac OS X do not currently have the luxury of a solid foundation like the CLR. Consequently, they…
Making portable applications isn't a solved problem. There's Java. It's decent, especially with Clojure and other JVM languages, but I find the idea of a more powerful language (like OCaml) not without merits. Clojure has run into a lot of problems due to the JVM, probably the most famous one being the lack of tail call optimization.
Re: HLVM -- the High-Level Virtual Machine
#10The virtues of the CLR are (rightly) extolled for Windows, then the lack of the CLR on Linux/OS X is cited as one justification for the HLVM. Mono is alive and well on those two platforms (notwithstanding hate from the GNU/Stallman camp). Not to start another thread, but I agree with his point on WPF being a generation ahead of similar technologies on other platforms. I hope we see work start on that at some point fo…
How is WPF a generation ahead of what OS X has? I haven't used WPF since 3.5 came out, but it didn't seem to offer anything better than what Cocoa offers. I think it's much better than Qt, but Qt has to make sacrifices to be cross platform, so it's a different kind of framework.