For further consideration, round 2

[Neal Gafter]

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.