For further consideration, round 2
neal at gafter.com
Mon Jul 20 13:57:18 PDT 2009
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Greg Brown <gkbrown at mac.com> wrote:
> I won't attempt to defend the collection literal proposal in particular,
>> but I will point out that different parts of a program can stress different
>> parts of your programming language.
> I agree that it is ideal to keep language sprawl on any given project to a
> minimum. However, some languages are simply better suited to certain tasks
> than others. Why not take advantage of it? Isn't that one of the reasons for
> adding multi-language support to the JVM?
No, language interoperability isn't a major goal of the JVM work. Rather,
it attempts to make the JVM a better platform for single-language
programming in languages other than Java. Don't expect easy
interoperability between Java and other JVM languages.
More information about the coin-dev