«

Christian Bau wrote:
> In article <>,
> Clint Olsen <> wrote:
>
>
>>I did a Google search on this and got quite a few hits - esp. a rather
>>large thread in '95. Having said that, has anyone even tried to rethink
>>'portable assembly' and come up with another implementation? Does such an
>>idea even have merit?
>

> There has been a portable assembler language for several years now - it
> is called JVM (Java Virtual Machine). Runs on zillions of different
> processors. Quite difficult to translate C into that particular
> assembler language though.

<OT>
Err... I would not start another holy war, but Python existed and was
(really) portable some years before Java
</OT>

Anyway, Java bytecode *is not* a "portable assembler" in the OP (and
usual definition of C language) meaning... A Java compiler produces
(well... is supposed to produce) the same bytecode whichever the
processor, which is not what we want here.

Bruno