On Thursday April 2 2009, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > ... > > Well, you can always build and release a binary yourself, since it's > GPLed...you just can't call it "Java" or "JVM" because it's not being > held to those standards. Would that make you comfortable enough to > run something like MLVM with its early tail call support?
For uses other than experiments of various sorts or for purely local development activities, this is a non-starter. I'm pretty sure that the respective principals behind Clojure and Scala will not alter their code generation to exploit non-standard JVM bytecodes, so for the large majority of users, this approach is simply irrelevant. Furthermore, it's not as if this _concept_ is new—it is not. The consequences of having or not having TCO are well understood. The point being that experimentation isn't really what's required by the community of JVM users (however defined, be it language designers, compiler writers or programmers using one of the fascinating and valuable non-Java JVM-based-languages). Frankly, I cannot see why this is a matter of debate among the ranks of those who make the decisions about the JVM standard. There is manifest need for TCO at the JVM level and it should go in forthwith. > - Charlie Randall Schulz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
