On Saturday 28 November 2009 17:25:58 Daniel Simms wrote:
> Also, I wanted to chime in with something like "we already have
> closures: use Clojure! or Jython, or... So how about TCO?"
Amen, brother.
PS: And value types. ;-)
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultanc
On Saturday 28 November 2009 20:58:54 eyeris wrote:
> It's also important to get features into Java if you want real
> substantial JVM performance tuning for them.
Not if they're anything like Microsoft: F#'s closures are much faster
than .NET's closures...
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consult
It's also important to get features into Java if you want real
substantial JVM performance tuning for them.
On Nov 28, 11:58 am, Christian Vest Hansen
wrote:
> Having closures in Java is important because it potentially means type
> compatibility for closures across languages. I
Hello,
offtopic: interesting brainwashing effect: When reading the subject
line of this conversation, I wondered what is a 'closure' and that
someone must have misspelled 'clojure'.
I should probably go to bed.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Christian Vest Hansen
wrote:
Having closures in Java is important because it potentially means type
compatibility for closures across languages. I don't think there will
be a one language to rule the JVM, so features that make it easier to
interoperate multiple languages are useful.
Also, libraries written in Java
No comments on this:
http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/closures
yet? It's no help to Clojure, but it's nice to see similar
motivations.
Also, I wanted to chime in with something like "we already have
closures: use Clojure! or Jython, or... So how about TCO?"
--
You received this message beca
