Difference between revisions of "Bytecode for transfer"

From Apertium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
This page is to list ideas and their pros and cons.
This page is to list ideas and their pros and cons.


== It's done ==
== Prototype ==


http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1265010453.2248.0.camel@Pipe&forum_name=apertium-stuff
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1265010453.2248.0.camel@Pipe&forum_name=apertium-stuff

Revision as of 14:31, 2 February 2010

Adapt transfer to use bytecode instead of tree walking. This task would be write a compiler and interpreter for Apertium transfer rules into the format of an an off-the-shelf bytecode engine (e.g. Java, v8, kjs, ...).

This page is to list ideas and their pros and cons.

Prototype

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1265010453.2248.0.camel@Pipe&forum_name=apertium-stuff


Java bytecode

  • Considering that lttoolbox is on its way to being ported to Java. If Java bytecode was chosen this might eventually make Apertium run on J2ME devices (only the tagger is missing for a full system).
<jacobEo> spectie: jimregan I don't know, but I suppose that Java byte would run fastest, as there have been extremely 
  much work on optimize its speed, on different platforms....
<jacobEo> spectie: jimregan Also think in terms of some day get Apertium on a mobile phone.... then transfer in Java 
  bytecode would be the easiest thing. But if we don't at least also do Java bytecode, then we would have to write 
  a (non-Java) bytecode executor in J2ME.... pheh....
<jacobEo> spectie: jimregan Actually, if we get lttoolbox-java to work AND have Java bytecode for transfer, then we 
  instantly HAVE apertium running on phones! And also on Windows, many Unix variants, web pages, whatever can run Java bytecode.

Javascript bytecode

A Javascript engine.

External links