Patrick Wright wrote: >> This is a chicken and egg problem. OCamlJava would surely be far more widely >> used if it wasn't crippled by missing JVM features. F# is an obvious example >> of what OCamlJava could become if these limitations were removed. >> >> I suspect OCaml/F# would be a lot more compelling than Lisp/Scheme but YMMV. > > The fact that OCaml-Java, as well as other languages, faces problems > because of JVM limitations is important information for you to share, > IMO. I was only pointing out two types of language implementation that > might not be as popular as the usual suspects but who deserve to be > mentioned, and wasn't intending to exclude any. I'm sure Charles' time > on stage will be limited, but personally think a roll-call would be > pretty cool. But that's just me.
Most definitely if there are JVM limitations preventing certain languages from performing well (or being implemented at all) they should be shared. Probably here if it's more a discussion of high-level features and high-level ideas for implementing them, but then perhaps moving to the MLVM list if discussing the dirty details of implementing those features on OpenJDK/DaVinci. By all means...share the load! - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
