Neither of those though, move Java off a VM/JIT basis.
That's the thing; the Nailgun workaround to an extent avoids the startup overhead, but can create other problems. E.g., when you're starting multiple builds on the same server (because the Nailgun server listens on a port, so you may have to sort out conflicts), if you have multiple users on the same machine (because anybody can connect to the socket, so you have a potential security problem), etc.
With a native option, this can be avoided (note that IBM offers an AOT compiler for Java).
Note: I'm not saying a native option doesn't make sense, my original question is what would be the benefit for Java/C# (though we've focused on Java) of native first.
Re: Nailgun - that seems like an implementation issue, but yes, if native compilation were present then Nailgun wouldn't exist (or need to) so the technical issues causing those problems wouldn't exist.
That's the thing; the Nailgun workaround to an extent avoids the startup overhead, but can create other problems. E.g., when you're starting multiple builds on the same server (because the Nailgun server listens on a port, so you may have to sort out conflicts), if you have multiple users on the same machine (because anybody can connect to the socket, so you have a potential security problem), etc.
With a native option, this can be avoided (note that IBM offers an AOT compiler for Java).