3 ms·
I'd also add that I believe the usage in the title here is a little obscure -- I think almost any generalist programmer (i.e., not someone who exclusively works
by zamfi 7y ago
I'd also add that I believe the usage in the title here is a little obscure -- I think almost any generalist programmer (i.e., not someone who exclusively works in program language VMs or in system VMs) would assume "VM" refers to a system-level virtual machine.
At one point I interacted with the JVM and its quirks on a daily basis, and I never started referring to it as "the VM", it was always "the JVM".
I suspect in large part because they're not that different from a systems perspective, I assume "VM" to mean the more generic of the two!
- atq2119 7y agoThe usage has changed over time. Go back 15 years, and I'd expect people would more commonly associated "VM" with the language VM. Of course, that historical development fits well with the high-level claims made in the paper.
- zamfi 7y agoAgreed. There was a time where the system-level virtualizer was "the hypervisor", but I was still in school then. ;)
- stephenrkell 7y agoAn important bit of context is that this is a talk from the workshop "MoreVMs", which is about -- you guessed it -- language VMs and not systems VMs. In that context, the qualifier is not necessary. In more general contexts I tend to write "language VMs" explicitly.