Re: [dev] Re: Most suckless multi-language VM

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:14:54 +0100


On 3 October 2011 18:38, pancake <> wrote:
> Because there's nothing virtual in a real architecture. And emulating it is just an emulation. Virtualization is not supported by mips. So..

You're right, MIPS isn't a VM, it's an ISA. But the Dis virtual
machine is based upon the Dis ISA (a CISC-like bytecode); likewise the
JVM, CLR, etc. So MIPS isn't a VM, but a VM may implement MIPS.

On 3 October 2011 19:08, pancake <> wrote:
> Nope. Virtualization != emulation != simulation != interpretation.

The difference between an emulator and a VM is that an emulator
simulates a specific device / processor, rather than executing the ISA
itself. If we were to emulate the N64, it would be an emulator; if we
were to virtualise MIPS, it would be a VM.

> Nevertheless when ppl talk about virtual machines they usually refer to pieces of software that implement machines that cannot be implemented by hardware because they provide high level opcodes and primitives.

Anything that can be implemented in software can be implemented in
hardware; it's simply not cost-effective to do so.

So yeah, MIPS may well be the best ISA for a 'multi-language' VM.

(Holy acronyms, Batman.)

Received on Mon Oct 03 2011 - 20:14:54 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 03 2011 - 20:24:03 CEST