> > I'd recommend also at least covering (or listing), in brief, the range > > of languages the JVM has been used to support, even if they haven't > > developed a large user base--this could include all sorts, including > > the LISP and Scheme dialects, for example. > > This is a chicken and egg problem. OCamlJava would surely be far more widely > used if it wasn't crippled by missing JVM features. F# is an obvious example > of what OCamlJava could become if these limitations were removed. > > I suspect OCaml/F# would be a lot more compelling than Lisp/Scheme but YMMV.
The fact that OCaml-Java, as well as other languages, faces problems because of JVM limitations is important information for you to share, IMO. I was only pointing out two types of language implementation that might not be as popular as the usual suspects but who deserve to be mentioned, and wasn't intending to exclude any. I'm sure Charles' time on stage will be limited, but personally think a roll-call would be pretty cool. But that's just me. I'm sure you have specific issues with the JVM--if you haven't already, I'm sure the MLVM project would be glad to have you detail those [1]--John Rose has openly invited people to do so to help guide MLVM work and research. Likely not every wish can be granted but maybe you'll be happy with the improvements to the VM that come out of it--IMO I think your feedback is _crucial_ to the MLVM effort. Cheers Patrick [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" 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/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
