Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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).



> 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.


Sorry, I misread it.


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.


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.


It would also screw up interop. You'd basically have the issue everyone has when trying to call C++.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: