Walter did yo realy go Ohhhh?

[Georg Wrede]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
>>> So I think he's just forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the fact 
>>> that someone still has to write that VM and the operating system it 
>>> runs on, and those better run as fast as possible or no one will care 
>>> how wonderfully "dynamic" it is.
>>
>> Considering that all the languages he talks about still have to be 
>> /compiled/ for the VM (JIT or no JIT), I have a hard time seeing the 
>> case for VMs being rock-solid and compelling.
>>
>> Think about it. If I have a web site where I let viewers run their own 
>> code on my server, I could simply provide them with a rigged D 
>> compiler. The compiler would (or a preprocessor, it would actually be 
>> easier for me) flag no-nos in their source code as errors. No biggie.
>>
>> Or I might sandbox the running user binaries.
> 
> Or you could just use Java's VM instead of trying to figure out how to 
> make all that work.  I think that's a big part of it.  The Java VM works 
> and is available today, so for people like Steve it makes sense to use it.

Hmm. I originally took it like he's promoting the VM as /itself/ having 
properties that make it the superior and Obvious choice. But maybe it's 
all simply about the Java VM bein easy ubiquitous and mature.

>> And then there's the choice nobody seems to suggest: running a VM that 
>> uses the processor's own ASM as the VM language. The (e.g. D) compiler 
>> would enforce the exclusion of dangerous idioms.
> 
> That's kinda what the "virtual appliance" thing is about isn't it? 
> Running an app inside a VMWare instance with some ASM as the VM's native 
> tongue.

Pretty close.