Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

> 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++.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com