Native vs. VM in embedded [ was Re: Impressed ]

[Russel Winder]

On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 22:40 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[…]
> allocation. Even natively-compiled, that doesn't sound like my idea of a
> good embedded language. But I dunno, I guess maybe if they're
> using it in the sort of way that game devs use Lua...(Not that I'm a fan
> of Lua - far too dynamic for my tastes.)

The benefit of using Java in an embedded context is exactly to avoid
native code. The use of a language that has no access to physical memory
makes operating system level security management significantly easier.

For example on smart cards – which has to be one of the most constrained
multi-application platforms out there – the lengths processor
manufacturers have to go to support management of native code
applications is awful compared to those who support only Java Card. Yes
I know Java Card is not Java in any meaningful way, shape or form, but
it is an bytecode virtual machine based system.

The use of dynamic languages in systems such as games, post-production,
image manipulation has many similarities in terms of security
management, but is there for a wholly different purpose: the C and/or C
++ code does all the real computational work.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120729/63436274/attachment.pgp>