Jon Harrop wrote: > 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?
This interview with Guy Steele about Fortress might answer your question: http://se-radio.net/podcast/2006-11/episode-36-interview-guy-steele -- Weiqi Gao [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
