Hi, I see a lot of strawman arguments for standardization but I don't really see anything with substance. I'm not against the standardization route but I'm just not seeing the need to treat this any differently than say.. a different GC implementation. How about Escape Analysis or the internals of IBM's equivalent of HotSpot/JIT which is quite different. What makes tail recursion different? JRockit 1.4 Mission Control seemed to force JMX into the 1.5. IMHO, if it is going to make a difference, others will pick it up and then it will be a lot easier to add it into the JVM specification.
I hate to divert the thread but is Jigsaw really a feature of Java 7 or a reworking of the packaging and delivery of Java? Regards, Kirk Neil Bartlett wrote: > Sun has recently shown willingness to introduce features -- even very > major ones -- into its JVM that are not necessarily supported by other > JVM vendors since they are not part of the Java 7 specification. The > specific feature I'm thinking of here is Jigsaw. > > I can't comment as to whether Sun actually plans to implement tail > calls in it's JDK 7 or not. I personally would be a lot more > comfortable relying on TCO if it were part of the specification... > remember that the Sun JVM may be the de facto standard on Windows and > Linux but not necessarily on Macs, mobile devices and large enterprise > servers and mainframes. > > Of course, for this feature to appear in the Java 7 specification, > that specification has to actually exist. Right now it looks like it > won't until after Sun's JDK 7 is released -- assuming Sun isn't > acquired in the meantime, in which case most bets are off. > > Regards > Neil. > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jon Harrop <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thursday 02 April 2009 15:09:12 Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: >> >>> It's not necessarily Sun's choice when it exhibits external behavioral >>> changes. Such changes must be standardized so all JVMs will support >>> them. If it were just up to Sun, it would probably go in (since I know I >>> want it and several others want it). >>> >> Ok. I only care about Sun's JVM because it is the defacto standard. If tail >> calls are not adopted as a standard across all JVMs, what are the odds of Sun >> including them just in its own JVM as an extension? >> >> >>> My question back at you is this: what's your motive for posting this >>> question? >>> >> I want to make sure I've got my facts straight, both in order to make an >> informed decision myself and to inform others accurately. Specifically, I am >> considering diversifying into Scala and/or Clojure and I need to know whether >> or not the elimination of tail calls may become reliable in those languages >> in the relatively-near future. If not, that is a serious impediment for >> functional languages and will rule out all JVM-based languages for me. >> >> >>> And of course you can certainly build OpenJDK + MLVM with tail calls to >>> try it yourself. >>> >> The problem is not my building and installing a custom JDK and testing it to >> make sure that it is reliable myself. The problem is that requiring customers >> to do that is such a substantial barrier to adoption that it would seriously >> undermine commercial viability. Suffice to say, *not* having to do that has >> always been one of the strongest selling points of the JVM. >> >> -- >> Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. >> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
