[armedbear-devel] Some thoughts on classloaders, ...

[Don Cohen]

Alessio Stalla writes:
 > In other
 > words, the JVM is natively object oriented, it has no concept of
 > function, only methods.
This is not, in my mind, the same thing as being natively object
oriented.  A function could be an object too.
If you wish I'll be happy to view a function as a method of a class
that is nothing more than a container for that function.

 > It doesn't only supports loading from files. Out of the box there are
 > classloaders that know how to load code from arbitrary URLs, from JARs
 > inside WARs (packaged web applications), and more; you can write your
 > own and even generate code on the fly if you want, but, no matter
 > what, the end result will always be a class with methods holding the
 > code.
Good, so you should be able to write a "classloader" that supports
creation of an anonymous subclass of "compiledFunction" (of which
there might never be any instances) given a single argument of type 
byte vector.