2009/11/22 Matt Fowles <[email protected]>: > Robert~ > > Ease of debugging mostly. Our production environment always goes straight > to bytecode, but when we are debugging the compiler it is much nicer to be > able to step through java code and get links from it back to compiler code > the generated it.
We looked at this in the early days of Groovy. It my be a decent route for your language but it wasn't great for Groovy. The problem is that there are some Java features (e.g. checked exceptions) which are enforced by the compiler but not the JVM. If your language shares all the restrictions that the Java compiler enforces then it's a perfectly good option. Groovy doesn't share many of the Java restrictions so it didn't seem worth it. Also generating bytecodes is not that hard once you get up the learning curve a bit so I think most people end up just going straight to bytecode because it's easier in the end. John Wilson -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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=.
