I wrote:
this sounds very much like anti-Java FUD to me. Please be
specific. What are the problems of the plan that has been
proposed? How would it "pollute our system with legal baggage"?
(Nota bene, the proposal is to start with a free JVM
implementation)
Martin Coxall <address@hidden> replied:
My career is Java. I have no need to FUD.
Then please provide the requested specifics.
What I am worried about is blindly allowing an implementation
of a privately owned set of specifications forming the core of
a very important free software project.
I can assure you that we're not planning to go about this
blindly. We know that the choice of bytecode is a crucial
decision for the project, and the time has come to look at
the various reasonable options. My current list of reasonable
options is this:
a) Johan Hanson's proposal
Start with Java bytecode, the Java language and the Java libraries.
Then, extend the bytecode and runtime environment to have
features that are supported by Microsoft's bytecode.
Design the modifications to the bytecode so that a recompiler from
CLR bytecode to DotGNU bytecode would be as simple as possible.
Start with Kaffee or some other existing Java implementation that
is licensed under the GPL. (if any)
b) Use and extend Portable.NET
Endorse IL and C#, extending them as necessary. Use and
contribute to Rhys Weatherley's efforts to write a good
C# compiler and runtime system in C
The website of Rhys Weatherley's Portable.NET project is
at http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html
I would like to invite everyone to make suggestions for items
that maybe should be added to this list of "reasonable options".
Greetings, Norbert.