Am 29.08.2014 11:03, schrieb Thomas Wuerthinger:
John,
Thanks for this detailed analysis on the current status and proposed
future work for invokedynamic. Can you also add some comments on what
you believe the advantages and disadvantages of using Truffle instead of
invokedynamic for implementing dynamic languages on top of the JVM are?
I am not John but from my perspective I have two hopes for Truffle:
(1) dynamic handling of constructor delegation calls this/super
(invokedynamic does help zero here)
(2) keep internal frames out. (an invokedynamic based groovy program has
an about 10 times reduced stack depth because of lambda forms)
I also see potential for cases in which the MethodHandle gets overly
complex. In Groovy we have for example up to N+1 guards for a method
call with N arguments plus a catchException part and a switchpoint. Most
of them ending up in selecting the method new. I could imagine things
getting even more complicated.
bye Jochen
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
