I think it would be really valuable to have it. Since JVM has now definitely moved away from the Java-as-the-only-language, availability of TCO would allow languages that semantically assume it to be ported to JVM.
Attila. On 2009.12.08., at 20:50, Ben Evans wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Jon Harrop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 08 December 2009 12:58:22 Ben Evans wrote: > > Hi John and group. > > > > Given the new timelines announced for milestone releases for 7, what are > > the chances of getting tail calls back on the table for that release? > > > > If the answer is basically "no chance", then what are the roadblocks? > > > > If it could be done, then what would be required and who could help with > > various stages? > > > > (Apologies if this has been covered recently, pls feel free to point me at > > a thread - I am rather behind on mail). > > AFAIK Arnold Schwaighofer completed the work a long time ago, implementing TCO > in OpenJDK, but the problem is that the JVM committee do not want to add TCO > to JVMs as standard. I assume the reason is simply benefit vs cost: they do > not believe enough people would use TCO to warrant the work it would require. > > I put this question to the group at the Java 7 BOF at Devoxx and Alex > Buckley gave an interesting answer - that people basically feel that the > patchset is sound, but that what's missing is people prepared to run with it, > test it out, report back, etc. > > If that's the case, then what do people on this group think? Is there enough > demand for it for people to commit time to it? It's a long time till Java 8, > after all. > > Charlie: Would you use it for JRuby if it was available? > > Ben -- 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=en.
