over-eager verification

Wed Mar 6 14:54:00 GMT 2002

>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

>> So it explicitly requires checking during preparation and not at
>> invocation.

Per> Who cares? It's just a book.
Per> We have to look at the big picture: Making sure that invalid code
Per> does not violate the Virtual Machine constraints is the big
Per> picture.
This seems circular. The only way to know what is invalid code is by
reading the book, which defines what is invalid.
We could get better performance doing lazy verification. But then we
wouldn't be making a compatible Java implementation. We'd be making
something that is almost but not quite Java.
I think that compatibility is important. I prefer compatibility and
adherence to the specification (to the extent possible, given its
occasional opacity) over divergence, even when the divergence has
benefits.
Tom