[Coco] Re: 6809 emulater in C#

[Nathan Woods]

>I'll agree. I also believe that 'Code Bloat' is a major contributing
problem
>with Java. Also, is it possible that JIT was an afterthought for the
Java
>byte code, but was taken into consideration during the design of the
>underlying low-level CLI for .NET?

Yes, the .NET designers basically given up on interpretive execution.  I
do not know the exact details, but one of the ways that this shows is
that in .NET bytecode, certain operations (add, subtraction etc) get the
same bytecode regardless of their type.  This is as opposed to Java
bytecode, where the bytecodes say "add integer" etc.  This aspect of the
.NET bytecode saves a few bits, but makes it hard to interpret because
an extra data structure would have to be maintained to track the types
of data in various slots.  A Jitter is required to maintain such a data
structure by design.  The implication of this is that when Java bytecode
is Jitted, this data that identifies the type is pretty much redundant.

>Good point.  Where is the real money?  Where it makes sense to make
things
>as simple as possible, IMO.

Two words - corporate apps.