The problems with StringBuilders...

Adam Megacz
Thu Oct 13 05:16:00 GMT 2005

Tom Tromey <> writes:
> ("we" == "the part of Red Hat working actively on gcj")

I have to say that, above all else, I'm quite grateful that such a
part exists.  That's pretty cool.

> basically interested in making existing java applications in the
> desktop/server space run well with the smallest number of
> application-specific hacks.

Interesting.  The fact that RedHat is willing to put nontrivial
resources into gcj, coupled with this particular choice of focus makes
me speculate on the goals: is RedHat interested in becoming less
dependent on Sun for Java support?  This would explain quite a bit.

I'm skeptical about whether or not morphing gcj into a fully-fledged,
every-last-feature, TCK-compatible JVM is the best way to get this,
although it certainly does give you support for a huge number of
architectures "for free", which would be an insane amount of work
any other way.


Honestly, I'm leery of the whole situation just because I've seen way
too many blantant cases of Sun's API and language design choices being
biased to rely on the strengths of their own JVM (GC of small objects
that die young, for example).  I mean, there really is absolutely no
other rational explanation for why we still don't have even a limited
form of stack-allocated objects (I realize there are issues with the
fully general case, of course).

I guess you just have to keep in mind that you might be chasing a
target that doesn't want to be caught ;)

  - a

More information about the Java mailing list