DOS ain't dead

http://sourceforge.net/projects/jaguid/
A partial Java implementation with GUI running on DOS.
I saw someone on one of the Freedos lists spouting off about Java for DOS without really getting it, and had to mention this.
Haven't tested!

By the way, there was some mention made of Kaffe.
I'd like to mention that there was at one point a Kaffe/ NanoX port...
...which could be used for DOS, thanks to Georg Pothast's work.

From what I've seen, JamVM is a semi-common VM for use, and apparently somewhat easy to port. But I wouldn't know if a DOS port is practical.

Outside of anyone to heavily test or develop some of this stuff, all this talk (esp. mine) is purely theoretical, but I hope you'll indulge me anyways (though I don't claim to know even a drop of or use Java barely at all).

JaguiD is old, from 2006, no maintainer (and no author??), several downloads that seemingly conflict, so I've not bothered downloading and testing them all, or any actually. "pre-alpha" doesn't instill high hopes.

Anyways, yes, I already tried to mention what little about Java re: DOS I knew in that freedos-user thread, which I assume you're referring to here. Like I said there, various weak versions have existed, esp. the JavaPC commercial one from 1997 (Java 1.1), which may be the best DOS attempt so far.

However, part of the real problem (besides lack of volunteers for DOS) is that Java contains various things: networking, GUI, language (exceptions, garbage collection, OOP, threads), VM + JIT, (tons of) libraries, etc. It's not impossible (in theory) to get something working, but we'd have to decide exactly what. Java syntax is probably easiest, re: VM dunno but perhaps Dalvik (from Android) would be relatively easy to port (famous last words).

But it's too much for just a few of us, esp. those who have little skills in Java or interest. I know that's no help, but I'm just being honest here. I just see no huge use in having all this reduplicated in Java fashion (since we already have other languages and libraries with mostly similar features), though I'm not opposed in theory, just see it as a steep hill to climb.

I was not aware that Kaffe had nano-X support. Kaffe 1.1.9 still had nano-X files. As Rugxulo pointed out it will probably be a lot of work to get Kaffe to work with DOS/nano-X and I do not know how many people will be using it in the end.

Here is a link of a Kaffe port to DOS:
KaffePC

Georg