Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

lafo.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#31

Post by pron »

tluyben2 wrote: post #7

This looks interesting, but I am generally worried about something being owned by Oracle. Simple example; I own an Openpandora. I wrote a live coding environment in Java with a very basic, lispy language at it's core. Using any free Java implementation it either; did not start (core dump; suspect; not enough memory to get even the VM up) or ran very (unusable) slow. With the Java 7 closed source ARM version from Orac…

There's a lot that can be said about Oracle's stewardship of Java, what it's like and how it should improve; it's a very important conversation. But the tone of your comment (and some of its child comments) seem to take the discussion in a misinformed direction. I don't know how much of the world's important server-side software is written in Java (or runs on the JVM), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 80%. The fact of the matter is that aside from small-to-medium startups' servers, the world's server-side software is mostly Java. Almost all non-embedded, large defense software is Java; almost all banking software is Java; Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google are mostly Java/JVM shops (when it comes to their infrastructure software).

Saying "I'm not using anything owned by Oracle" is something most serious server-side developers just can't say, because, frankly, there's little choice. If you require high-performance, multi-million-LOC software developed by a large team, you would be quite foolish to choose anything but the JVM. So we should certainly discuss Oracle's behavior, but pretending that we can avoid Oracle software like it was a specific linux distribution is a misrepresentation of reality.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#32

Post by chrisseaton »

mpweiher wrote: post #23

So what is the Substrate VM? The main presentation appears to be about Truffle, a language-implementation framework, which looks neat by itself. The "Substrate VM Execution Model" slide talks about Ahead Of Time Compilation, which makes it sound like it might actually be the LLVM-based Substrate VM: http://vmkit.llvm.org . Alternatively, could it be a version of Maxine? AOT as an option certainly sounds interesting..…

The SVM here is unrelated to the LLVM project. The SVM allows you to take a Java program (with some restrictions) and turn it into single static binary that is the JVM, libraries and the program all compiled and optimised together. So you can compile our Ruby implementation and get a ruby binary just like MRI - no JVM needed at runtime. Then startup time is about the same as MRI.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#33

Post by acqq »

chrisseaton wrote: post #32
mpweiher wrote: post #23

So what is the Substrate VM? The main presentation appears to be about Truffle, a language-implementation framework, which looks neat by itself. The "Substrate VM Execution Model" slide talks about Ahead Of Time Compilation, which makes it sound like it might actually be the LLVM-based Substrate VM: http://vmkit.llvm.org . Alternatively, could it be a version of Maxine? AOT as an option certainly sounds interesting..…

The SVM here is unrelated to the LLVM project. The SVM allows you to take a Java program (with some restrictions) and turn it into single static binary that is the JVM, libraries and the program all compiled and optimised together. So you can compile our Ruby implementation and get a ruby binary just like MRI - no JVM needed at runtime. Then startup time is about the same as MRI.

Which representation is used to produce the static binary? Is it a native binary? What is the backend? Gcc, LLVM?

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#34

Post by area51org »

iso-8859-1 wrote: post #19
raphinou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone having an idea why parrot is not more popular?

Because it's associated with Perl 6 which is commenly believed to be vaporware (yes, even if there have been releases). And because they want to make it so perfect that people can't remember why they used to be excited about it.

FWIW, the problem with their having been "releases" is that there is no reference release; Larry Wall is uninterested in doing an implementation.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#35

Post by integricho »

pron wrote: post #31
tluyben2 wrote: post #7

This looks interesting, but I am generally worried about something being owned by Oracle. Simple example; I own an Openpandora. I wrote a live coding environment in Java with a very basic, lispy language at it's core. Using any free Java implementation it either; did not start (core dump; suspect; not enough memory to get even the VM up) or ran very (unusable) slow. With the Java 7 closed source ARM version from Orac…

There's a lot that can be said about Oracle's stewardship of Java, what it's like and how it should improve; it's a very important conversation. But the tone of your comment (and some of its child comments) seem to take the discussion in a misinformed direction. I don't know how much of the world's important server-side software is written in Java (or runs on the JVM), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 80%.…

Meaning the world is in corporate hands,sad enough.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#36

Post by phwamgflw »

dubbledidu wrote: post #15
tluyben2 wrote: post #7

This looks interesting, but I am generally worried about something being owned by Oracle. Simple example; I own an Openpandora. I wrote a live coding environment in Java with a very basic, lispy language at it's core. Using any free Java implementation it either; did not start (core dump; suspect; not enough memory to get even the VM up) or ran very (unusable) slow. With the Java 7 closed source ARM version from Orac…

Yes. The first slide basically guaranteed that I will never look into this project. The risk of touching anything Oracle-related is not worth the potential benefit.

How very open-minded of you. At least consider the project on it's metrics, not on your distaste for a particular corporation.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#37

Post by ghostdiver »

pron wrote: post #31
tluyben2 wrote: post #7

This looks interesting, but I am generally worried about something being owned by Oracle. Simple example; I own an Openpandora. I wrote a live coding environment in Java with a very basic, lispy language at it's core. Using any free Java implementation it either; did not start (core dump; suspect; not enough memory to get even the VM up) or ran very (unusable) slow. With the Java 7 closed source ARM version from Orac…

There's a lot that can be said about Oracle's stewardship of Java, what it's like and how it should improve; it's a very important conversation. But the tone of your comment (and some of its child comments) seem to take the discussion in a misinformed direction. I don't know how much of the world's important server-side software is written in Java (or runs on the JVM), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 80%.…

Oracles flagship product can be replaced by Postgres? No?

ps. Why compare with top 3 american internet giants, what's the point?

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#38

Post by vidarh »

phwamgflw wrote: post #36
dubbledidu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The first slide basically guaranteed that I will never look into this project. The risk of touching anything Oracle-related is not worth the potential benefit.

How very open-minded of you. At least consider the project on it's metrics, not on your distaste for a particular corporation.

Being under control by Oracle is part of it's merits, and it counts massively negatively for a lot of us.

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#39

Post by Gonzih »

pron wrote: post #31
tluyben2 wrote: post #7

This looks interesting, but I am generally worried about something being owned by Oracle. Simple example; I own an Openpandora. I wrote a live coding environment in Java with a very basic, lispy language at it's core. Using any free Java implementation it either; did not start (core dump; suspect; not enough memory to get even the VM up) or ran very (unusable) slow. With the Java 7 closed source ARM version from Orac…

There's a lot that can be said about Oracle's stewardship of Java, what it's like and how it should improve; it's a very important conversation. But the tone of your comment (and some of its child comments) seem to take the discussion in a misinformed direction. I don't know how much of the world's important server-side software is written in Java (or runs on the JVM), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's around 80%.…

OpenJDK?

Re: One VM to Rule Them All [pdf]

#40

Post by ksec »

First Time there is any public numbers on Topaz, the RPython / PyPy implementation of Ruby.

Note: Only Two benchmarks presented in the Paper, and as with any benchmarks take it with a grain of x.

If it wasn't for JVM Truffle, Topaz is the fastest implementation of Ruby. And by a large margin. Assuming Ruby 2.0 was 5x faster then Ruby 1.8, Topaz is 8-10x faster then Ruby 2.0!

And Truffle is about 1.5-2.5x faster then Topaz.

Now i want to know would there be a better faster FFI for SVM.

And how far are we from seeing release of SVM?

Post reply on HN