I have not delved to deep in the code, but is there any functional differences it has over Java other than the size ?
Presumably Java would also be pretty tiny if we wrote it in bytecode instead of higher lever Java.
replies(1):
Bedrock is a lightweight program runtime: programs assemble down to a few kilobytes of bytecode that can run on any computer, console, or handheld. The runtime is tiny, it can be implemented from scratch in a few hours, and the I/O devices for accessing the keyboard, screen, networking, etc. can be added on as needed.
I designed Bedrock to make it easier to maintain programs as a solo developer. It's deeply inspired by Uxn and PICO-8, but it makes significant departures from Uxn to provide more capabilities to programs and to be easier to implement.
Let me know if you try it out or have any questions.
Presumably Java would also be pretty tiny if we wrote it in bytecode instead of higher lever Java.
Which means implementations also have to be correspondingly complicated. You have to handle quite a few different primitive data types each with their own opcodes, class hierarchies, method resolution (including overloading), a "constant pool" per class, garbage collection, exception handling, ...
I would expect a minimal JVM that can actually run real code generated by a Java compiler to require at least 10x as much code as a minimal Bedrock VM, and probably closer to 100x.