On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Does this mean that there are Foo, Bar, and Baz classes, each > providing a non-static apply method that calls the appropriate static > method in FooBarBaz? I don't see why that's better than just having > one class per function with the function right in the class.
Yes, that's what it means. If the stubs were generated ahead of time, then you're right: it's no better than a class-per-function. However in JRuby we generate the stubs at runtime, so you can batch-compile a bunch of Ruby code to .class and only the stubs actually used will be generated and live only in-memory. And of course if you can use JSR292, you won't ever need to generate the stubs at all. - Charlie -- 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.
