Re^5: A great talk on Perl6

Java programs could be compiled independently of JVM ... now I have a doubt about this possibility in Java

I don't think you can do that. Tools like Excelsior JET or exe4j are distributed with, or install, a JVM. Afaik tools that compile to native code do so via a JVM.

Could NQP or another compiler produce also binary executables (not bytecode intended for virtual machines)?

In theory, yes, but why? I see plenty of downsides and no upsides. What would you hope such an approach would achieve?

»ö« ^{. o O ( "the celebrity tell-all of the Perl-6 cult?" )}

Comment on Re^5: A great talk on Perl6

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: A great talk on Perl6 by emilbarton (Scribe) on Apr 03, 2014 at 21:12 UTC
In Wikipedia I read : "There exist also compilers emitting optimized native machine code for a particular hardware/operating system combination." E.g. GCJ. > What would you hope such an approach would achieve? Speed. Many thanks for your answer, but as I told you, things are beyond my understanding from now on.	[reply]
Re^6: A great talk on Perl6 by Anonymous Monk on Apr 03, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
At least two reasons, Ralphie-boy. 1 to avoid rewriting all of your code when the perl-6 spec changes or Rakudo breaks backwards compatibility yet again. 2 to avoid having to depend on whatever the flavor du jour VM is THIS month. Maybe that's just one reason. To prevent the beer-obsessed attention deficit development process of perl-6 from breaking your production code. Of course that means you're right. You won't hear me say this often, Ralphie-boy, but you're right. There's no point. Why not just use a language that exists? One with developers who know how to deliver working software that doesn't break every month? Good point.	[reply]