John > Here's how I think it works in this case: > > VM vendors listen to customers. If customers want dynamic language > implementations, and new standard VM features to support them, they will > figure out how to work the JCP process to create the standards. > > Conversely, nobody has time for JCP work that customers aren't asking for.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. After reading your comments, I'm less worried; since the MLVM was first announced, I have been a little bit concerned that we'd end up with changes to HotSpot which make it a good target for a certain class of languages, but which are incompatible with other VMs. Taking the time to experiment publicly (and it's been cool to see the first downloads and tests of the MLVM patches recently) sounds like a good approach. I hope that for at least some of the ideas you've been floating there will be consensus from other VM vendors on moving forward. I'd prefer to see this whole effort avoid the customization and vendor-specific extensions in, say, the relational database world. That said, I'm a big fan of VM Vendors, esp. that one film about angels hanging out in Berlin. (sorry, couldn't resist) Good luck and thanks again for taking the time. Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
