Oh, no doubt it can be designed and implemented as a transparent layer
over the existing Java syntax, but there are still drawbacks:
1) The core code would get bigger and so would the JAR file (some things
cannot be easily taken out of the core, for example the parser, right?)
2) Implementing 'scripty' features will inherently shift some of the
development from other things which I personally consider more important.
Bob Lee wrote:
> As others have pointed out, closures can be a compatible extension and
> would not prohibit your doing this. Just don't use them if you don't
> want to.
> On Apr 24, 2004, at 1:30 PM, Dawid Weiss wrote:
>> I also agree that BeanShell should remain a 'scriptable Java'
>> language, not "a scripting language that looks somewhat like Java'.
>> So, for example, I'd love to see full (and stable) support for the
>> dynamically compiled classes, anonymous classes etc... so that porting
>> the code from BeanShell to real Java would only mean copy, paste and
>> recompile. I already use this functionality in a couple of projects
>> and it (requirement-wise) works like a charm.
>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek
>> For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35
>> or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th!
>> Beanshell-developers mailing list