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.