> I think it's unfortunate that the JSR was started with a solution > (invokedynamic) rather than a problem (implementing dynalangs on the > JVM is hard). This is not reflection on John who came to the JSR long > after it was created.
See Gilad's old blog entry at http://blogs.sun.com/gbracha/entry/invokedynamic and other blogs from around that time. "Last winter we had a meeting with various people who work on such languages - things like Groovy, Perl, Python/Jython. Our conclusion was that the most practicable thing was to support dynamically typed method invocation at the byte code level." There are some other notes about that meeting floating around on the web somewhere that were published at the time. If this list had existed then, we'd have more information about what was discussed back then and why they came up with the invokedynamic idea. Regards Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
