On Friday 03 April 2009 06:31:38 Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
You mean if I wanted to tinker with it? Sure, but there is little point
in me running it if my customers will not.
So you're really not looking for a solution then, unless it's someone
else (Sun) putting the
Hi Ben,
Now we are getting somewhere ;-)
Ben Evans wrote:
Hi Kirk,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM, kirk kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com
mailto:kirk.pepperd...@gmail.com wrote:
I see a lot of strawman arguments for standardization but I don't
really
see anything with substance.
Neil Bartlett wrote:
Kirk, this was pretty much my point. Sun are willing to introduce
major changes like Jigsaw without a JSR, so why not tail calls? Having
said that, if you write code that relies on either Jigsaw or tail
calls then you are locked into one JVM.
I applaud your
Frankly, I cannot see why this is a matter of debate among the ranks of
those who make the decisions about the JVM standard. There is manifest
need for TCO at the JVM level and it should go in forthwith.
+1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009 18:10:05 Bradford Cross wrote:
What is the current state of the art for language implementers working
around these issues (tail calls, continuations, etc) in Clojure, Scala,
JRuby, etc?
The state of the art in all of the major functional
On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Robert Fischer wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009 18:10:05 Bradford Cross wrote:
What is the current state of the art for language implementers
working
around these issues (tail calls, continuations, etc) in Clojure,
Scala,
JRuby, etc?
2009/4/3 Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com:
On Friday 03 April 2009 14:18:32 Robert Fischer wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
The state of the art in all of the major functional languages for the
JVM (Scala and Clojure) is that they die with a stack overflow because
the JVM lacks tail calls. :-)
On Friday 03 April 2009 14:59:03 Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
If you cannot get tail calls accepted into the required standard, then
release an additional non-standard JVM that includes the existing
implementation of tail call elimination (and potentially other useful
Nothing is stopping you from doing tail calls in the JVM languages geared for
them -- which is all
the functional languages.
~~ Robert.
John Cowan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Chas Emerick cemer...@snowtide.com wrote:
There's no doubt that in every application-oriented context
Antonio Cuni wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
If you want to see how much of a benefit tail calls are in practice, look
at .NET (which has had them for the best part of a decade).
.NET tail calls are totally inefficient. Here is a benchmark to measure tail
vs non-tail calls:
On Friday 03 April 2009 15:51:22 Antonio Cuni wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
If you want to see how much of a benefit tail calls are in practice, look
at .NET (which has had them for the best part of a decade).
.NET tail calls are totally inefficient.
totally inefficient vs broken.
--
Dr Jon
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Friday 03 April 2009 17:03:31 Robert Fischer wrote:
Nothing is stopping you from doing tail calls in the JVM languages geared
for them -- which is all the functional languages.
What exactly do you mean by this?
As has been stated on this very thread a number of
On Friday April 3 2009, John Cowan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Robert Fischer
robert.fisc...@smokejumperit.com wrote:
As has been stated on this very thread a number of times, at least
the major functional languages have already dealt with tail call
recursion, often via
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
I want to make sure I've got my facts straight, both in order to make an
informed decision myself and to inform others accurately. Specifically, I am
considering diversifying into Scala and/or Clojure and I need to know
14 matches
Mail list logo
