Patrick Wright wrote: > I'd recommend also at least covering (or listing), in brief, the range > of languages the JVM has been used to support, even if they haven't > developed a large user base--this could include all sorts, including > the LISP and Scheme dialects, for example. Point being that the JVM > has been used to run a range of languages--and the follow-up to that > would be, "...but it can't run all of them really well, because of > missing feature/limitation X..." which would segue into the MLVM. > Language implementation is hard work and all these folks deserve > kudos, in public, even if their languages aren't currently being > touted as the next best thing.
Yeah, good idea. I started a thread to discuss this and get a nice list together. I could go with one of the "big lists" out there, but that doesn't really give me any idea what "we" would want to list if "we" were all speaking. So go to that thread and weigh in too. > Along these lines, being a long-time contributor to an open source > project, I'd recommend offering a range of suggestions of how people > can help, for example, > - simply downloading some of these languages and spending a weekend with them > - an hour or two a month helping others on the mailing lists > - blogging about how to get started, small code snippets or > discoveries--blogging is cheap and is often a very useful resource for > others who want to get started > - reporting bugs or difficulties as opposed to just complaining about > them on a private blog > - sharing and/or contributing small demos, how-tos, getting started docs, etc. This is a great list...and exactly what I want to get across to people. I may also go into the most basic howto for contributing to open source, so people at least realize it's not something beyond their capabilities. > What I'd like to hear about here is what Sun's commitment is to the > MLVM outside of the invoke dynamic JSR. I'm excited to see the > proposals that John Rose has been blogging about, but the catch is > that any of those that require JVM changes require a JSR, an expert > group, and approval by the JCP--which includes other JVM implementors > who have to agree to update their JVMs to support those features > (including heavyweights like IBM, for example). The worst that could > happen is that the MLVM ends up like the ill-fated Barcelona project > (multi-app VM), interesting research, interest from the > community...abandoned. Knowing how far Sun is willing to go in pushing > this is important in knowing the range of languages that can > realistically be supported on the JVM in the future. You're probably > in a good position to get some info on this and share it with the > crowd. Changes that are intended to go back into "Java" require a JSR. Changes maintained as a separate patchset and non-Java-named binary distribution, would not. I think in general, Sun is trying to encourage the use of OpenJDK not just for Java-related work, but for experimentation and exploration outside the more strict definition of what "Java" actually is. And to that end, you can currently grab OpenJDK source and John Rose's patches and build a Da Vinci containing features not likely to get into JDK7. So if we (John and others) can make those patchsets in the open, and produce binaries for folks that can't build...what more do we really need? Adoption ought to be driven by need and practical cooperation, in my opinion, and that's what we all should collaborate on with OpenJDK and Da Vinci. - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
