I'd add the our knowledge of implementing dynamic language on the JVM has evolved a lot since 3 years ago. The reasons back then may differ with the knowledge we have now.
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Patrick Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 > > > > -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager G2One, Inc. Vice-President Technology http://www.g2one.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
