Kirk, this was pretty much my point. Sun are willing to introduce major changes like Jigsaw without a JSR, so why not tail calls? Having said that, if you write code that relies on either Jigsaw or tail calls then you are locked into one JVM.
I also don't want to divert the thread onto Jigsaw. I have made my feeling about it clear in other places, but in this thread I use it only as an example. Regards Neil On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM, kirk <kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > 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. > > I hate to divert the thread but is Jigsaw really a feature of Java 7 or > a reworking of the packaging and delivery of Java? > > Regards, > Kirk > > > Neil Bartlett wrote: >> Sun has recently shown willingness to introduce features -- even very >> major ones -- into its JVM that are not necessarily supported by other >> JVM vendors since they are not part of the Java 7 specification. The >> specific feature I'm thinking of here is Jigsaw. >> >> I can't comment as to whether Sun actually plans to implement tail >> calls in it's JDK 7 or not. I personally would be a lot more >> comfortable relying on TCO if it were part of the specification... >> remember that the Sun JVM may be the de facto standard on Windows and >> Linux but not necessarily on Macs, mobile devices and large enterprise >> servers and mainframes. >> >> Of course, for this feature to appear in the Java 7 specification, >> that specification has to actually exist. Right now it looks like it >> won't until after Sun's JDK 7 is released -- assuming Sun isn't >> acquired in the meantime, in which case most bets are off. >> >> Regards >> Neil. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 02 April 2009 15:09:12 Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >>> >>>> It's not necessarily Sun's choice when it exhibits external behavioral >>>> changes. Such changes must be standardized so all JVMs will support >>>> them. If it were just up to Sun, it would probably go in (since I know I >>>> want it and several others want it). >>>> >>> Ok. I only care about Sun's JVM because it is the defacto standard. If tail >>> calls are not adopted as a standard across all JVMs, what are the odds of >>> Sun >>> including them just in its own JVM as an extension? >>> >>> >>>> My question back at you is this: what's your motive for posting this >>>> question? >>>> >>> I want to make sure I've got my facts straight, both in order to make an >>> informed decision myself and to inform others accurately. Specifically, I am >>> considering diversifying into Scala and/or Clojure and I need to know >>> whether >>> or not the elimination of tail calls may become reliable in those languages >>> in the relatively-near future. If not, that is a serious impediment for >>> functional languages and will rule out all JVM-based languages for me. >>> >>> >>>> And of course you can certainly build OpenJDK + MLVM with tail calls to >>>> try it yourself. >>>> >>> The problem is not my building and installing a custom JDK and testing it to >>> make sure that it is reliable myself. The problem is that requiring >>> customers >>> to do that is such a substantial barrier to adoption that it would seriously >>> undermine commercial viability. Suffice to say, *not* having to do that has >>> always been one of the strongest selling points of the JVM. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. >>> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e >>> >>> >> >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
