-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/7/10 19:19 , Alexey wrote: > > Scala, as far as I know. I may be wrong here, but given the fact > that Scala compiles into standard JVM bytecode and interoperates > with normal Java API (bidirectionally) tells me that even though > one programs in Scala in a functional manner, it's actually run the > same way as any other bytecode-based software on the JVM -- > imperatively. I don't understand this passage. Bytecode can be thought in many ways, one is just a virtual machine code, another is a compiler-back-end model before the final translation to binary code. In both ways it's just an intermediate artifact towards native code. Now, native code is imperative. Do we need a functional processor (which I don't know what could be) to run functional languages? I don't think so. While I'd understand your point if you're talking about the libraries, as those in standard Java are not functional.
- -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people [email protected] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxdmcAACgkQeDweFqgUGxeowACfTRqWzBJg6sGS8uxZkmorQtjq rDgAoJWItYyjXEojchvubJ/ppzQv8LTp =ejYo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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.
