Abhay Bhatt wrote:You seem to say that there is some inherit problem with sharing the source code. Exactly why is it, if so?
I will also like to add here that I am presuming that JVM itself is, in some subtle or nuanced way, a combination of components where:
Component1 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor1 of Platform1
Component2 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor2 of Platform2
Component3 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor3 of Platform3
...and so on.
So, whats the problem with having a kind of super compiler+executer which can compile and execute for every platform?
I also, didn't quite fully understood, the last two lines of your comment.
Fred Kleinschmidt wrote:Another reason is that different text editors on different platforms can store the file in different manners
Minor nitpick: it isn't LF‑CR but CR‑LF.Fred Kleinschmidt wrote:. . . versus Microsoft's newline/carriage-return. . . .
Why should it be necessary to translate bytecode? Java® is describe as an interpreted language, so the JVM can simply execute the bytecode.Abhay Bhatt wrote:. . .
Component1 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor1 of Platform1
Component2 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor2 of Platform2
Component3 translates bytecode to machine code for Processor3 of Platform3
...and so on.
. . . .
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |