views:

1575

answers:

17

I see here that there are a load of languages aside from Java that run on the JVM. I'm a bit confused about the whole concept of other languages running in the JVM. So:

What is the advantage in having other languages for the JVM?

What is required (in high level terms) to write a language/compiler for the JVM?

How do you write/compile/run code in a language (other than Java) in the JVM?


EDIT: There were 3 follow up questions (originally comments) that were answered in the accepted answer. They are reprinted here for legibility:

How would an app written in, say, JPython, interact with a Java app?

Also, Can that JPython application use any of the JDK functions/objects??

What if it was Jaskell code, would the fact that it is a functional language not make it incompatible with the JDK?

+1  A: 

They do it to keep up with .Net. .Net allows C#, VB, J# (formerly), F#, Python, Ruby (coming soon), and c++. I'm probably missing some. Probably the big one in there is Python, for the scripting people.

Joel Coehoorn
'Keep up', huh? There are * dozens * of languages on the JVM these days: http://www.is-research.de/info/vmlanguages/index.html
Stu Thompson
+1  A: 

What the JVM can do is defined by the JVM's bytecode (what you find in .class files) rather than the source language. So changing the high level source code language isn't going to have a substantial impact on the available functionality.

As for what is required to write a compiler for the JVM, all you really need to do is generate correct bytecode / .class files. How you write/compile code with an alternate compiler sort of depends on the compiler in question, but once the compiler outputs .class files, running them is no different than running the .class files generated by javac.

nsayer
+1  A: 

I would answer, “because Java sucks” but then again, perhaps that's too obvious … ;-)

Konrad Rudolph
+8  A: 

You need other languages on the JVM for the same reason you need multiple programming languages in general: Different languages are better as solving different problems ... static typing vs. dynamic typing, strict vs. lazy ... Declarative, Imperative, Object Oriented ... etc.

In general, writing a "compiler" for another language to run on the JVM (or on the .Net CLR) is essentially a matter of compiling that language into java bytecode (or in the case of .Net, IL) instead of to assembly/machine language.

That said, a lot of the extra languages that are being written for JVM aren't compiled, but rather interpreted scripting languages...

Jaykul
+4  A: 

Java is a fairly verbose programming language that is getting outdated very quickly with all of the new fancy languages/frameworks coming out in the past 5 years. To support all the fancy syntax that people want in a language AND preserve backwards compatibility it makes more sense to add more languages to the runtime.

Another benefit is it lets you run some web frameworks written in Ruby ala JRuby (aka Rails), or Grails(Groovy on Railys essentially), etc. on a proven hosting platform that likely already is in production at many companies, rather than having to using that not nearly as tried and tested Ruby hosting environments.

To compile the other languages you are just converting to Java byte code.

Alex Argo
+1  A: 

The advantage to having other languages for the JVM is quite the same as the advantage to having other languages for computer in general: while all turing-complete languages can technically accomplish the same tasks, some languages make some tasks easier than others while other languages make other tasks easier. Since the JVM is something we already have the ability to run on all (well, nearly all) computers, and a lot of computers, in fact already have it, we can get the "write once, run anywhere" benefit, but without requiring that one uses Java.

Writing a language/compiler for the JVM isn't really different from writing one for a real machine. The real difference is that you have to compile to the JVM's bytecode instead of to the machine's executable code, but that's really a minor difference in the grand scheme of things.

Writing code for a language other than Java in the JVM really isn't different from writing Java except, of course, that you'll be using a different language. You'll compile using the compiler that somebody writes for it (again, not much different from a C compiler, fundamentally, and pretty much not different at all from a Java compiler), and you'll end up being able to run it just like you would compiled Java code since once it's in bytecode, the JVM can't tell what language it came from.

+1  A: 

The advantage for these other languages is that they get relatively easy access to lots of java libraries.

The advantage for Java people varies depending on language -- each has a story tell Java coders about what they do better. Some will stress how they can be used to add dynamic scripting to JVM-based apps, others will just talk about how their language is easier to use, has a better syntax, or so forth.

What's required are the same things to write any other language compiler: parsing to an AST, then transforming that to instructions for the target architecture (byte code) and storing it in the right format (.class files).

From the users' perspective, you just write code and run the compiler binaries, and out comes .class files you can mix in with those your java compiler produces.

wnoise
+1  A: 

Different languages are tailored to different tasks. While certain problem domains fit the Java language perfectly, some are much easier to express in alternative languages. Also, for a user accustomed to Ruby, Python, etc, the ability to generate Java bytecode and take advantage of the JDK classes and JIT compiler has obvious benefits.

Kyle
A: 

To an extent it is probably an 'Arms Race' against the .NET CLR.

But I think there are also genuine reasons for introducing new languages to the JVM, particularly when they will be run 'in parallel', you can use the right language for the right job, a scripting language like Groovy may be exactly what you need for your page presentation, whereas regular old Java is better for your business logic.

I'm going to leave someone more qualified to talk about what is required to write a new language/compiler.

As for how to writing code, you do it in notepad/vi as usual! (or use a development tool that supports the language if you want to do it the easy way.) Compiling will require a special compiler for the language that will interpret and compile it into bytecode.

Since java also produces bytecode technically you don't need to do anything special to run it.

TygerKrash
A: 

The .NET languages are more for show than actual usefulness. Each language has been so butchered, that they're all C# with a new face.

There are a variety of reasons to provide alternative languages for the Java VM:

  • The JVM is multiplatform. Any language ported to the JVM gets that as a free bonus.
  • There is quite a bit of legacy code out there. Antiquated engines like ColdFusion perform better while offering customers the ability to slowly phase their applications from the legacy solution to the modern solution.
  • Certain forms of scripting are better suited to rapid development. JavaFX, for example, is designed with rapid Graphical development in mind. In this way it competes with engines like DarkBasic. (Processing is another player in this space.)
  • Scripting environments can offer control. For example, an application may wish to expose a VBA-like environment to the user without exposing the underlying Java APIs. Using an engine like Rhino can provide an environment that supports quick and dirty coding in a carefully controlled sandbox.
  • Interpreted scripts mean that there's no need to recompile anything. No need to recompile translates into a more dynamic environment. e.g. Despite OpenOffice's use of Java as a "scripting language", Java sucks for that use. The user has to go through all kinds of recompile/reload gyrations that are unnecessary in a dynamic scripting environment like Javascript.
  • Which brings me to another point. Scripting engines can be more easily stopped and reloaded without stopping and reloading the entire JVM. This increases the utility of the scripting language as the environment can be reset at any time.
64BitBob
"Antiquated engines like ColdFusion"? Adobe's latest release of ColdFusion, just one year ago, was their best selling version ever. The language has also been steadily maturing with each release. I would hardly say its antiquated. Although this is a common misconception I run into.
+1  A: 

Answering just your second question:

The JVM is just an abstract machine and execution model. So targetting it with a compiler is just the same as any other machine and execution model that a compiler might target, be it implemented in hardware (x86, CELL, etc) or software (parrot, .NET). The JVM is fairly simple, so its actually a fairly easy target for compilers. Also, implementations tend to have pretty good JIT compilers (to deal with the lousy code that javac produces), so you can get good performance without having to worry about a lot of optimizations.

A couple of caveats apply. First, the JVM directly embodies java's module and inheritance system, so trying to do anything else (multiple inheritance, multiple dispatch) is likely to be tricky and require convoluted code. Second, JVMs are optimized to deal with the kind of bytecode that javac produces. Producing bytecode that is very different from this is likely to get into odd corners of the JIT compiler/JVM which will likely be inefficient at best (at worst, they can crash the JVM or at least give spurious VirtualMachineError exceptions).

Chris Dodd
I Agree, it's absolutely vital to understand both the similarities *and* the differences between a JVM and a physical machine.
Joachim Sauer
+1  A: 

It's much easier for a compiler writer to generate JVM or CLR byte-codes. They are a much cleaner and higher level abstraction than any machine language. Because of this, it is much more feasible to experiment with creating new languages than ever before, because all you have to do is target one of these VM architectures and you will have a set of tools and libraries already available for your language. They let language designers focus more on the language than all the necessary support infrastructure.

Ferruccio
+4  A: 

Turning this on its head, consider you want to design a new language and you want it to run in a managed runtime with a JIT and GC. Then consider that you could:

(a) write you own managed runtime (VM) and tackle all sorts of technically difficult issues that will doubtless lead to many bugs, bad performance, improper threading and a great deal of portability effort

or

(b) compile your language into bytecode that can run on the Java VM which is already quite mature, fast and supported on a number of platforms (sometimes with more than one choice of vendor impementation).

Given that the JavaVM bytecode is not tied so closely to the Java language as to unduly restrict the type of language you can implement, it has been a popular target environment for languages that want to run in a VM.

fd
+14  A: 

To address your three questions separately:

What is the advantage in having other languages for the JVM?

There are two factors here. (1) Why have a language other than Java for the JVM, and (2) why have another language run on the JVM, instead of a different runtime?

  1. Other languages can satisfy other needs. For example, Java has no built-in support for closures, a feature that is often very useful.
  2. A language that runs on the JVM is bytecode compatible with any other language that runs on the JVM, meaning that code written in one language can interact with a library written in another language.

What is required (in high level terms) to write a language/compiler for the JVM?

The JVM reads bytecode (.class) files to obtain the instructions it needs to perform. Thus any language that is to be run on the JVM needs to be compiled to bytecode adhering to the Sun specification. This process is similar to compiling to native code, except that instead of compiling to instructions understood by the CPU, the code is compiled to instructions that are interpreted by the JVM.

How do you write/compile/run code in a language (other than Java) in the JVM?

Very much in the same way you write/compile/run code in Java. To get your feet wet, I'd recommend looking at Scala, which runs flawlessly on the JVM.

Answering your follow up questions:

How would an app written in, say, JPython, interact with a Java app?

This depends on the implementation's choice of bridging the language gap. In your example, Jython project has a straightforward means of doing this (see here):

from java.net import URL
u = URL('http://jython.org')

Also, can that JPython application use any of the JDK functions/objects?

Yes, see above.

What if it was Jaskell code, would the fact that it is a functional language not make it incompatible with the JDK?

No. Scala (link above) for example implements functional features while maintaining compatibility with Java. For example:

object Timer {
  def oncePerSecond(callback: () => unit) {
    while (true) { callback(); Thread sleep 1000 }
  }
  def timeFlies() {
    println("time flies like an arrow...")
  }
  def main(args: Array[String]) {
    oncePerSecond(timeFlies)
  }
}
toluju
Thanks, Just 1/2 follow up Qs. How would an app written in, say, JPython, interact with a Java app? Also, Can that JPython application use any of the JDK functions/objects?? What if it was Jaskell code, would the fact that it is a functional language not make it incompatible with the JDK?
Lehane
Added responses to your questions to my post.
toluju
+1  A: 

Because the JSR process is rendering Java more and more dead: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/01/java7-updated

It's a shame that even essential and long known additions like Closures are not added just because the members cannot agree on an implementation.

Yaba
A: 

The reason is that the JVM platform offers a lot of advantages..

  • Giant number of libraries
  • Broader degree of platform implementations
  • Mature frameworks
  • Legacy code that's already part of your infrastructure

The languages Sun is trying to support with their Scripting spec (e.g. Python,Ruby) are up and comers largely due to their perceived productivity enhancements. Running Jython allows you to, in theory, be more productive, and leverage the capabilities of Python to solve a problem more suited to Python, but still be able to integrate, on a runtime level, with your existing codebase. The classic implementations of Python and Ruby effect the same ability for C libraries.

Additionally, it's often easier to express some things in a dynamic language than in Java. If this is the case, you can go the other way; consume Python/Ruby libraries from Java.

There's a performance hit, but many are willing to accept that in exchange for a less verbose, clearer codebase.

Patrick Lee
A: 

Java has accumulated a massive user base over seven major versions (from 1.0 to 1.6). Its capability to evolve is limited by the need to preserve backwards compatibility for the uncountable millions of lines of Java code running in production.

This is a problem because Java needs to evolve to:

  • compete with newer programming languages that have learned from Java's successes and failures.
  • incorporate new advances in programming language design.
  • allow users to take full advantage of advances in hardware - e.g. multi-core processors.
  • fix some cutting edge ideas that introduced unexpected problems (e.g. checked exceptions, generics).

The requirement for backwards compatibility is a barrier to staying competitive.

If you compare Java to C#, Java has the advantage in mature, production ready libraries and frameworks, and a disadvantage in terms of language features and rate of increase in market share. This is what you would expect from comparing two successful languages that are one generation apart.

Any new language has the same advantage and disadvantage that C# has compared to Java to an extreme degree. One way of maximizing the advantage in terms of language features, and minimizing the disadvantage in terms of mature libraries and frameworks is to build the language for an existing virtual machine and make it interoperable with code written for that virtual machine. This is the reason behind the modest success of Groovy and Clojure; and the excitement around Scala. Without the JVM these languages could only ever have occupied a tiny niche in a very specialized market segment, whereas with the JVM they occupy a significant niche in the mainstream.

richj