On Friday 25 April 2008 12:08:25 David MacIver wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, easieste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And I would put 'Fortress' up there, but I don't know if Sun has > > released easily inspectable source code yet. > > They have, but Fortress probably shouldn't really be considered a JVM > language. If it stays on the JVM it will probably be because it failed > as a project. The JVM version is only the reference implementation and > is kinda unsuitable for their goals.
Can you elaborate on why the JVM is unsuitable for their goals? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
