Is there any technical reason? Given that adding the option to create anonymous classes as well as invokedynamic would certainly make the compiler more complex; using invokedynamic will almost certainly be more efficient in terms of .class files generated & probably execution; and Oracle would probably want to push people to use the latest JVM (it is 99% backward compatible after all)
I see this as being a reasonable choice. But obviously, I don't know anything :-) Of course, any particular compiler is free to implement lambdas however it wants. Matthew Farwell. 2012/10/2 Andreas Petersson <[email protected]> > Am 02.10.2012 10:36, schrieb Fabrizio Giudici: > > >> Definitely. Java is mostly backward compatible and I feel Java 8 will be >> the first exception. >> > Is there any particular reason a java 8 compiler woudl be unable to emit > bytecode (with a -target parameter) that is backwards-compatible? couldn't > the compiler just emit anonymous classes instead of invokedynamic? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <javaposse%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
