Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mbel 3376 days ago
The article describes Dalvik which is different from JVM, so it's not really a proof.

But you are actually right. It looks that JVM bytecode includes full function signature in function invocation: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/it-haggar_bytecod... (if I'm reading examples correctly).
2 comments
masklinn 3376 days ago
> The article describes Dalvik which is different from JVM, so it's not really a proof.

My comment describes the actual JVM, hence having linked to official Java/JVM documentation.

link
mbel 3376 days ago
Sorry, I misread it.
link
barrkel 3376 days ago
It could hardly be otherwise, or the JVM would need to do overload resolution at runtime, which would not be a pleasant experience for anyone.
link
mbel 3376 days ago
Well, it could just use function name and leave it to javac/kotlin/other JVM front end to handle overloads and generate unique names. Although that wouldn't work nice with refection and other run-time features I guess.
link
masklinn 3376 days ago
It would also screw up interop. You'd basically have the issue everyone has when trying to call C++.
link