Raoul Duke wrote: > Of course at the end of the day, Java has a lot more miles on the road > to shake out any issues, so I can also see arguments for not heading > away from Java! Further, if things are developed in Java, they are > probably more easily used by other JVM based languages, whereas > usually calling from Java into some esoteric new JVM based language is > less attractive.
Thanks for making my point ;-) > So, probably, I'm really just not making much practical sense... Well, theoretically there might be other languages that we could implement COP in, but from my own personal use I'm going to stick with Java for the time being for practical purposes. As I've said before though, I definitely don't mind if others want to explore other possibilities. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
