I agree that we cannot (yet) cut support for Java 6 but we continue to watch polls and usage closely. Java 6 has been EOL'ed for a while now and usage continues to drop. However, there are a few minor JDK-specific bits already in Clojure and it would be entirely possible to handle separate paths for 6 and 7.
The major concern is with the stability and *predictability* of invokedynamic. indy has undergone major revisions between Java 7 and 8 so it may be that what needs to be done is substantially different between the two. My impression from watching the work of people like Charles Nutter is that it requires a lot of flag tweaking to make it work reliably. It also seems that when you go off the fast path, you can go over a cliff with performance. **These are my impressions - they could be wrong.** For these reasons, it has not been high on the priority list, but having more work or data on this would be great. I am not speaking for Rich here, but my guess is that this is compatible with his thoughts. One of my first efforts for 1.7 is going to be working out how to support multiple Clojure builds for different purposes (such as lean runtime, Android, whatever) - this is foundational work that can open up the possibility of specialized Clojure builds, such as an invokedynamic-aware version. Alex On Friday, April 4, 2014 5:09:16 AM UTC-5, Plinio Balduino wrote: > > The guys from core team will correct me if I say any bs, but I think it's > not possible to keep Clojure compatible with Java 6, as Clojure 1.6 is, and > use InvokeDynamic bytecode in the same binary. DynJS, for example, is not > compatible with Java 6. > > Anyway, it would be nice to see any experiment with that bytecode and > Clojure, maybe evolving to some form of Clojure 2.0. > > It would be nice to hear the core team and/or Hickey's position about it. > > Regards > > Plinio Balduino > > On 04/04/2014, at 06:44, Robin Heggelund Hansen > <skinn...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Yeah, those were the blog posts I’ve read, but I can’t see that this is > actually being worked on for Clojure? > > 4. apr. 2014 kl. 11:43 skrev Plínio Balduino <pbal...@gmail.com<javascript:> > >: > > Hi, Hansen > > Fogus (from here) and Nutter (from JRuby) wrote nice posts about it. > > > http://blog.fogus.me/2011/10/14/why-clojure-doesnt-need-invokedynamic-but-it-might-be-nice/ > > > http://blog.headius.com/2011/10/why-clojure-doesnt-need-invokedynamic.html?m=1 > > Plinio Balduino > 11 982 611 487 > > On 04/04/2014, at 05:42, Robin Heggelund Hansen > <skinn...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Hi! > > Did someone ever look at supporting InvokeDynamic for Clojure? I've read a > couple of blogs and it seemed interesting, would be cool to know if there > actually were any advantages in practice. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/vNXIfkgRRkI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
