On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Friday 25 April 2008 12:08:25 David MacIver wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, easieste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > And I would put 'Fortress' up there, but I don't know if Sun has > > > released easily inspectable source code yet. > > > > They have, but Fortress probably shouldn't really be considered a JVM > > language. If it stays on the JVM it will probably be because it failed > > as a project. The JVM version is only the reference implementation and > > is kinda unsuitable for their goals. > > Can you elaborate on why the JVM is unsuitable for their goals?
Frankly, I'm not sure. But they've said in the past that their intent is not to remain on the JVM - the version currently running on it is just an interpreter as far as I know. I think part of it is that they want much more tight control over exactly what work goes on what core, which the JVM's threading model doesn't really allow at the moment. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
