On 03/05/2014 06:07 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 03/05/2014 05:55 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Brian Goetz wrote:
I suspect you were expecting this response: we don't add language
semantics through annotations.
Technically, we're not adding language semantics. The JVM is the one
interpreting the annotations.
And the JVM is the one implementing the language semantics (together
with javac which feeds the JVM with bytecodes). Language semantcis are
implemented by the combination of javac and JVM. If you say that this
feature does not require any change to javac, you're just saying that
you put all the burden on the JVM, but you *are* implementing the
language semantics using annotations nevertheless...
no, it's the other way around. javac maps Java the language to the
bytecode semantics.
The JVM only execute bytecodes.
Regards, Peter
cheers,
Rémi
I'm not trying to frustrate you; evolving a language with millions of
users is really, really hard. And one of the things that makes it hard
is recognizing our intrinsic conflicts of interest between "what good
will this do me" and "what harm will it do others."
I understand, that's why I want to avoid adding language support for
this niche/specialist feature.
Regards,
Jeroen
