[Coco] [Color Computer] Java for the m6809

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 05:48:17AM -0000, James Diffendaffer wrote:
> --- In ColorComputer at yahoogroups.com, "John W. Linville"
> <linville at ...> wrote:
>  
> > So you read (at least part) of it...  Yet despite the fact that they
> > never claimed otherwise, you go on and on about how you can't write
> > 'real' programs with it.  What is so offensive to you about it?
> 
> I never said you can't write 'real' programs with it. 

Pardon me for paraphrasing...I guess pointing out it's lack of
advanced APIs and estimating that any useful program would be too
big was meant to convey something else.

> You can't use existing Java code with it (it has NONE of the normal
> Java APIs).
> You wouldn't be able to write ANY programs for the coco with it as is.
> The amount of effort required to do anything on the coco with it is
> pretty significant.

I can't find my post in the archives where I said "use this to port
existing Java code to the 6809".  Neither can I find the one where I
said "this is the future of CoCo programming -- start using it today!"
Could you point them out for me?

FWIW, I think you are overstating what it would take to make it
produce a binary to run on the CoCo or a similar device.  You would
still lack the various "standard" APIs, of course.

> > > Everything I said is true
> > 
> > True?  Perhaps.  Irrelevant?  Definitely.
> 
> Says you.  Please... feel free to write a program for the CoCo on it.

At least you've stopped being so negative! :-)

> > Thanks so much for the recap on Java.  It gets so little coverage in
> > mainstream computer science circles!
> 
> Too bad you didn't seem to read any of it.
> 
> > More irrelevance.  You are the only one pushing the assumption that
> > it has to run 'portable' Java to be interesting.
> 
> Trying to write a Java program for what is there would be pretty
> frustrating at best.  I don't think that would be irrelevant. 

"Writing Java Program Proves Frustrating -- Film at 11:00"

> > Oh yes, the DECB GCC port is sooooo useful...
> 
> Funny, at least I've compiled some CoCo software with it that actually
> runs.  I have a Z machine adventure interpreter that has everything
> working but the I/O which I've never had time to write library
> routines for. 

I'm tempted to ask how you know it "has everything working" if there
is no I/O...

FWIW, I think demanding the ability to port code from other platforms
is too high of a bar.  Demanding 'everything' usually gets you 'nothing'.

> > > You obviously don't even know enough about it to comment and you want
> > > to jump all over me for pointing out obvious flaws with the project.
> > 
> > *smirk*
> > 
> > Perhaps you should check the archives and re-evaluate who "jumped
> > all over" whom.
> 
> Oh really?  This was my first post on the topic:
> "Interesting but java doesn't have to page RAM and 64K isn't going to
> be enough"
> 
> That's not jumping all over you.
> 
> And yours:
> "I think you missed the point of the project..."

Oh gosh!  You know, you're right...I should have my 1st Amendment
freedoms revoked for abusing them with such a vile, mean, and angry
post.  It was quite irresponsible for me to suggest that you missed
the point.  Shocking!  At least you handled it well...

> I missed nothing and you read way more emotion into my post than was
> there because you chose to.
> How dare I disagree with you.

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.  Your next post was off the charts.

As for what you missed...you missed that it was just a link to
a cool project that some might find interesting -- nothing more.
And you missed the point that crapping all over that guy's project
because it isn't useful to you just discourages everyone else from
talking about their own projects.

> > No, you can't.  But if you pull your ears out past your sphincter
> 
> And yet you have to stoop to insults.

Is that the best you've got?  I suppose all your attempts to paint
me as some sort of idiot weren't insults?  No?

> > you might recognize it for what it is -- a cool little project.
> 
> I said it's interesting in my first post.  
> Again... it's not very useful.  

Again...I never said it was useful -- just cool.

> FWIW, converting byte codes is just a matter of reading a byte code
> and spitting out a sequence of instructions to duplicate it.  It's
> more time consuming than complex.  Way easier than a full compiler.
> 
> BTW, Java doesn't use registers, everything is on the stack so it's
> using stack index pointers a lot.  That's much slower than registers
> so it would be significantly larger and slower than C unless you
> optimized the code a lot... but at least it's possible on the 6809.
> 
> I'd hate to have to implement that on the 6502.  A C compiler on the
> 6502 is ugly and C is only partially stack based.  The 6502 only has
> an 8 bit stack pointer, 8 bit pointer registers and to get around that
> you have to use page 0.  Now try a language centered around the
> stack... that would be a nightmare.  Come to think of it, it would
> result in pretty slow code on the Z80 too but at least it would be
> better than the 6502. 

Ah yes, easy as pie.  I mean, we all have cool projects like this
just sitting around right?  We don't just go around bothering the
group with them!  We are all just busy professionals here, trying
to get through the day so we can get back to our family, friends,
and hobbies.  I'm sorry I bothered you with that silly URL.  You can
go back to your work now.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville at tuxdriver.com