Hi Per, > (4) Invokedynamic was a noble experiment to alleviate (2), but so far it > does not seem to have solved the problems. > > (5) It is reasonable to continue to seek improvements in invokedynamic, > but in terms of resource prioritization other enhancement in the Java > platform > (value types, tagged values, reified generics, continuations, removing > class size > limitations, etc etc) are more valuable. > > (6) That of course does not preclude an "aha": If we made modest change > xyz, > that could be a big help. I just don't think Oracle or the community > should > spend too much time on "fixing" invokedynamic.
I'm exactly on the opposite side: invokedynamic *has* to be improved :-) What we have here goes well beyond the tiny world of language implementers. A retargetable runtime binding and dispatch mechanism has many other usages (hint: middleware, middleware, middleware). - Julien _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
