Java Virtual Machine

RedNifre · Post by **RedNifre** » Wed 09 Mar, 2005 5:20 pm

Is it possible to write a Java Virtual Machine for a calculator like the TI83+?
I don't like asm and Basic is so slow...

BTW: Someone wrote one for the Robotic Command Explorer:
http://lejos.sourceforge.net/

DJ_O · Post by **DJ_O** » Wed 09 Mar, 2005 5:36 pm

MLC and Fast RPL language might be an option.

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Wed 09 Mar, 2005 6:05 pm

As if Java were notoriously fast... No worries though, it's impossible.

Post by **kv83** » Wed 09 Mar, 2005 7:05 pm

CoBB wrote:As if Java were notoriously fast... No worries though, it's impossible.

phew ... I was scared for a sec that it would be possible j/k

serious though. Believe me... you don't want an oo programming language interpreter on a ti83... ASM is fine, once you get used to it

Post by **Patori** » Wed 09 Mar, 2005 8:39 pm

I like ASM...

the_unknown_one · Post by **the_unknown_one** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:48 am

Basic is surely slow (except if ur name is Kevin or dysfunction), and ASM is hard and not everyone likes it, and its not oncalc either, so MLC is the solution! Much faster than Basic, oncalc and easily portable!

Post by **kv83** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:49 am

the_unknown_one wrote:Basic is surely slow (except if ur name is Kevin or dysfunction), and ASM is hard and not everyone likes it, and its not oncalc either, so MLC is the solution! Much faster than Basic, oncalc and easily portable!

but still not avaible on 83 or 83+... which is a downside

the_unknown_one · Post by **the_unknown_one** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:50 am

Yea, but it'll be soon

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:26 pm

The hardness of asm is a myth. In fact, it's the simplest language you can imagine on a computer.

RedNifre · Post by **RedNifre** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 1:04 pm

OK, then I'll have a look at assembly. (I'll read the stuff in CoBB's signature)

Post by **kv83** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 1:17 pm

http://joepnet.com/hosted/maxcoderz/php ... .php?t=170

Good luck

Post by **Patori** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 1:44 pm

CoBB wrote:The hardness of asm is a myth. In fact, it's the simplest language you can imagine on a computer.

Yeah, it is very simple. Try it. IF you need help, ask us.

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 3:19 pm

CoBB wrote:The hardness of asm is a myth. In fact, it's the simplest language you can imagine on a computer.

The hardness of asm is that you have to stop thinking in objects and variables, and start thinking in bytes... Some people find that impossible

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 4:33 pm

Objects? Seriously, anyone who starts programming with an OO language will face unsurmountable troubles later, especially if that language tries to evade the notion of 'pointer'. You can only have a good understanding of any language if you actually know what its constructs are transformed into by the compiler on machine level, e. g. subroutine calls use the stack to store the return address, loop constructs turn into conditional jumps, instance variables of objects need to be allocated in the heap etc. This is only trivial with asm. Unless you know what conceptual steps the machine makes when you write down something, your understanding is mere illusion.

Kalimero · Post by **Kalimero** » Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:45 pm

Objects? Seriously, anyone who starts programming with an OO language will face unsurmountable troubles later, especially if that language tries to evade the notion of 'pointer'.

Well, let me tell you something. The first programming language I learned was Java back when I was about 14 years old. I think the advantage of it is that you approach OOP as something entirely new and not as an extension of something else. Really OOP is all about thinking in terms of objects not in code. Actually you're not even interested in the code. That's what's meant with software architecture these days. You "draw" the software before building it.

You can only have a good understanding of any language if you actually know what its constructs are transformed into by the compiler on machine level.

I don't think this is necessarily the case when programming in such a high level language as Java or any OO language for that matter (Eiffel,...). In that case you're only interested in the service your objects provide to other objects. In Eiffel you'd set up a contract describing what each object does and how it relates to other objects. When you've done this you're 80% there without writing a single line of code. The actual implementation of these objects usually boils down to finding a good algorithm. And only when you've found a good algorithm you're interested in an efficient implementation of it, which might involve fiddling with low level stuff, but after all the previous things this is really the least of your worries even if there are some significant speed gains. Getting things to work properly (without bugs) takes far more effort and is far more important and you don't need to know what a while loop is translated into to get that far. All you need to know is that the thing loops on a given condition.

Of course things are entirely different when you're programming routines for numerical mathematics or something where you even want to control what goes in and out the processor cache to increase the speed, but then of course you don't use an OO language for this.

I do agree with you on the fact that knowing assembly even for a simple chip as the z80 greatly improves your understanding of how a computer works, but in large software projects this knowledge is pretty insignificant if you ask me.

MaxCoderz

Java Virtual Machine

Java Virtual Machine

lol

Re: lol

lol