On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ben Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
A couple points: * TCO isn't part of the Ruby language, so there would need to be some discussion about whether us doing TCO would diverge from the language specification itself. I'd love to see it though. And I'd love for the JVM to have it so that when they eventually *do* add TCO, we wouldn't have an impossible time implementing it. * The functional guys would probably love to have TCO right now. But it's a bitch to build OpenJDK+patches for many folks. * John Rose posted recently about invokedynamic + tail calls; I have not had a chance to read it yet. I think it should get rolled in as a JVM feature even if Java doesn't support it right now, because other languages coming down the pike *will* want it. Honestly...we have a working patch. Why not? And while we're at it, we should take up a collection to get fixnums and value types added. - Charlie -- 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.
