tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post3357818587072859233..comments2023-12-06T19:00:46.094+00:00Comments on OSGi Blog: ClosuresJürgen Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725834158183495837noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-22171664033747688242008-10-21T09:40:00.000+00:002008-10-21T09:40:00.000+00:00At the time I played with it they did and I compla...At the time I played with it they did and I complained about this. The JRuby guys weighted in and explained how they compiled to methods. I recall reading they then decided to go to methods in the next major release, but I can't find any real reference except my original post: http://markmail.org/message/edyinfu62exrnexi<BR/><BR/>Then again, I did not spent a lot of time searching ...<BR/><BR/>Peter Krienshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11373850803487010328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-71843082220671647602008-10-20T20:24:00.000+00:002008-10-20T20:24:00.000+00:00As far as I know, Groovy closures always compile d...As far as I know, Groovy closures always compile down to classes.Peter Niederwieserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07908150130912600539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-66174379006773470742008-10-20T15:58:00.000+00:002008-10-20T15:58:00.000+00:00Ed: thanks, fixed it.Neil: When I look at the prop...Ed: thanks, fixed it.<BR/><BR/>Neil: When I look at the proposals the inner classes seem an intrinsic part of their specifications. It looks like the Generic Java type system lacks the constructs to handle the type constraints that are needed for generically typing methods. As said in the blog, dynamic languages do not have this problem so it is straightforward to compile to methods.<BR/><BR/>I Peter Krienshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11373850803487010328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-88488938162429907752008-10-20T14:26:00.000+00:002008-10-20T14:26:00.000+00:00Boris, I don't think Groovy and JRuby are happy wi...Boris, I don't think Groovy and JRuby are happy with the JVM as it is, but the improvements in the <A HREF="http://openjdk.java.net/projects/mlvm/" REL="nofollow">MLVM</A> should make them happier. Members of both projects have been contributing to the design and implementation discussions. Part of the MLVM work is being standardised through the invokedynamic JSR so it will not be restricted to Ismael Jumahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398483226873559286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-81263788837832554782008-10-20T14:06:00.000+00:002008-10-20T14:06:00.000+00:00It'll be interesting to see if Closures will even ...It'll be interesting to see if Closures will even make it into Java 7, see for example Alex Miller's predictions: http://tech.puredanger.com/2008/08/02/java7-prediction-update/<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be surprised if Java (the language) became less important over time, but am hoping that Java (the VM) will stay and remain important for a long time to come. Which means that language issues are not as Boris Bokowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06344587055927544695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-48851302085779459162008-10-20T13:53:00.000+00:002008-10-20T13:53:00.000+00:00An implementation based on method handles would be...An implementation based on <A HREF="http://blogs.sun.com/jrose/entry/method_handles_in_a_nutshell" REL="nofollow">method handles</A> would be interesting.<BR/><BR/>The alternative would be to fix anonymous inner classes so that they're not so wasteful. This would benefit existing systems too.<BR/><BR/>IsmaelIsmael Jumahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398483226873559286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-22811250237443931852008-10-20T13:36:00.000+00:002008-10-20T13:36:00.000+00:00Call me a hopeless idealist but surely this in an ...Call me a hopeless idealist but surely this in an implementation problem rather than a fundamental flaw with the specifications of either BGGA or FCM?<BR/><BR/>Also since this is a Java 7 change, there should be the opportunity for whatever VM changes might be necessary to support the Java language changes (ao long as those changes are made such that they are compatible with JSR 291!).Neil Bartletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08588098030811273044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-13173581324028217552008-10-20T12:18:00.000+00:002008-10-20T12:18:00.000+00:00As co-author of FCM closures, I would be quite hap...As co-author of FCM closures, I would be quite happy to see our proposal compile to methods where appropriate. For me, the main point is to get the semantics right, particularly wrt return.Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-37706110217041636292008-10-20T12:10:00.000+00:002008-10-20T12:10:00.000+00:00Peter, both the links point to the same thing: the...Peter, both the links point to the same thing: the FCM proposal. <BR/><BR/>It's interesting that making Java yet more complex will actually make it simpler for users...Ed Merkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05000982591510437551noreply@blogger.com