3 ms·
> Specifically, don't introduce new syntax Hearing this in the context of Scala is hilarious[0]. > force your users to deal with the fact that your bytecode i
by _pmf_ 10y ago
> Specifically, don't introduce new syntax
Hearing this in the context of Scala is hilarious[0].
> force your users to deal with the fact that your bytecode is now incompatible with previous versions and now requires a new minimum version for the VM. They can recompile...it's not really that big of a deal.
Only in the ideal world of greenfield development. You have to ensure that the build system, bytecode enhancer, AOP injectors all are able to cope with the new bytecode format.
[0] http://www.flotsam.nl/dispatch-periodic-table.html http://www.flotsam.nl/dispatch-periodic-table.html
- premium-concern 10y ago>> > Specifically, don't introduce new syntax > Hearing this in the context of Scala is hilarious[0]. I'm confused, I don't see any syntax in this link. Wrong link? > You have to ensure that the build system, bytecode enhancer, AOP injectors all are able to cope with the new bytecode format. If you use Scala you usually need none of them. Problem solved.
- ThatsWhatHappen 10y agoCurrently no, soon yes. Currently no classloader is needed to run Scala code. However, in order to solve binary compatibility once and for all, Scala 3 (aka Dotty) adds an extra bytecode layer on top of Java bytecode. Details at https://d-d.me/talks/scaladays2015 https://d-d.me/talks/scaladays2015
- premium-concern 10y agoWrong parent? (_and_ wrong content, btw)