Jon Harrop wrote: > On Saturday 19 April 2008 14:28:53 Patrick Wright wrote: > >> Hi Charlie >> >> 0.02: >> >>> - Discussion of a few key languages that could be arguably considered >>> "popular" and where they stand in their development processes >>> >> 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. > > We would certainly jump on the OCamlJava bandwagon if it were feasible and we > would probably even create JVM-based languages of our own (for technical > computing). >
Hmm. Tell me what the JVM misses that .NET has with regards to OCaml and F#. Because I really can't figure out what it would be. Also, stating the compellability of OCaml/F# over Lisp/Scheme is something I'm definitely against. (I'm against the converse too, of course) Cheers -- Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com) JRuby Core Developer Developer, ThoughtWorks Studios (http://studios.thoughtworks.com) Practical JRuby on Rails (http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818) "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
