> I see a lot of strawman arguments for standardization but I don't really > see anything with substance. I'm not against the standardization route > but I'm just not seeing the need to treat this any differently than > say.. a different GC implementation. How about Escape Analysis or the > internals of IBM's equivalent of HotSpot/JIT which is quite different. > What makes tail recursion different? JRockit 1.4 Mission Control seemed > to force JMX into the 1.5. IMHO, if it is going to make a difference, > others will pick it up and then it will be a lot easier to add it into > the JVM specification.
It seems this is all premature. The most useful thing right now is to have a prototype people can test against using OpenJDK and report back on how much it helps. I'm pretty sure that as sure as the first changeset is ready there will be a stable full of functional programmers chomping at the bit to try it out. Then we can see how much of a benefit it (this particular approach) is in practice. 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 jvm-languages+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
