On 1 June 2010 20:50, Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> wrote: > > What really counts though is that we get 1st-class method handles. > > > Agreed. That's pretty awesome. Also, the prospect that the VM might be able > to make dynamic languages as fast or nearly as fast as static ones. > > Hopefully, though the big win for dynamic languages here is invokedynamic, not method handles.
It's also worth noting that all of the general purpose JVM languages (except Java) already have some form of closure, whether dynamically (JRuby, Groovy) or statically typed (Scala), and performance in the space is pretty damn good. The significant gain then is not in performance, but in interop between them all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
