On Thursday 02 April 2009 20:19:14 Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > 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. > > Well, you can always build and release a binary yourself,
Obviously "a binary" is not sufficient because it will only run on one version of one OS. I would need JVMs in binary form for every architecture/platform combo that our customers use (which is dozens). I've tried that before and it creates a sufficiently high barrier to entry for customers that it is not commercially viable for us. > since it's > GPLed...you just can't call it "Java" or "JVM" because it's not being > held to those standards. Would that make you comfortable enough to run > something like MLVM with its early tail call support? You mean if I wanted to tinker with it? Sure, but there is little point in me running it if my customers will not. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
