> You are being facetious. I mean, do you actually believe that the JVM exists in a context where Java does not exist? What does the J in JVM stand for? Java r

> You are being facetious. I mean, do you actually believe that the JVM exists in a context where Java does not exist? What does the J in JVM stand for? Java runs on several things that are not the JVM. Android does not use JVM to run Java, and even Oracle is pushing something that is not the JVM. At the same time, JVM runs many things that are not Java. If you are somehow implying along the lines of JVM only got initially authored because Java, then that is nothing but a historical fact of little relevance from the early days of the language. If not even Oracle considers Java and JVM one thing - and by virtue of Graal they don't - then it simply isn't as such. > This analysis is very superficial and fails to identify any of the real world arguments to switch from C You misread - what you quoted was not an analysis of why the migrations happen. It was a parallel, underlining that migrations do happen in spite of obvious feature differences (and sometimes, because of such differences).