Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 00:45 UTC
Java Java 5 generics provide information that's useful for many classworking applications. This article shows how the ASM Java bytecode manipulation framework offers flexible access to generics information without going through the Java classloading process. Along the way, It looks deeper into the representation of generics in the binary class format.
Order by: Score:
ASM is not bytecode
by Vorlath on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 03:21 UTC
Vorlath
Member since:
2005-12-03

ASM should only be associated with assembly.

I resent having the acronym ASM being associated with something as uncool and not hardware related as Java. It makes me think that this is more Java hype to make people think manipulating bytecode is somehow similar and on par to actual machine code. Like Java is still fishing to be respected (and using "by association tactics" to achieve this). Any other name would have been more respectable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ASM is not bytecode
by someone on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 09:05 UTC in reply to "ASM is not bytecode"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Java bytecode is a form of machine code and it can be made to run on hardware instead of VMs! So ASM and java bytecode are very much related.

As for the coolness/uncoolness of java bytecode, I think you need to have a look at the BCEL project first.

Reply Score: 1

RE: RE: ASM is not bytecode
by hhcv on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 12:52 UTC
hhcv
Member since:
2005-11-12

I agree.. From the tried and tested vmware, to the up an coming Xen project we're going to see the definition of 'machine' language change.

With increased virtualisation (especially cross platform stuff - consider Rosetta too) we'll see binaries running on non native platforms - just like the Java VM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ASM is not bytecode
by Vorlath on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: RE: ASM is not bytecode"
Vorlath Member since:
2005-12-03

Virtualisation is not the answer. It's what limits us. We need to achieve portability by specialisation instead of using monolithic solutions such as bytecode or VM's. We already have tons of machine languages. Adding a virtual bytecode that isn't even attached to a machine only serves to compound the problem.

By specialisation, I mean to expand the idea of what OS were supposed to provide. What needs to be done is have a better standard than POSIX or whatever else is out there.

We're heading in the wrong direction. I sure won't be following the pack as it jumps into the ocean. And please don't confuse hardware virtualisation with software virtualisation. They are two very different things although they share the same name.

Reply Score: 1