On 10 November 2012 19:05, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 November 2012 21:42, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2012 11:03 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
It is too much imo.. Clojure->java -> c++
i would just write C++ code
The API is either Java or C++ or .NET. I agree that no sane person would go Clojure->Java->C++ :)
Why? It's all just bytecodes on a JVM. And Clojure is a _much_ nicer language than Java.
i don't know the details of Clojure implementation. but i know that the longer the tool chain , the more problems you may have, because every link adds own complexity into soup.
Clojure would provide the option of interfacing natively the Java API, without having to write Java. But then I am left developing in Clojure, unless I decide to serve to Pharo via http/websockets.
But you'd still need to write something here, to expose the API via HTTP, so you can't escape the net completely.
As I do not currently know Java or Clojure or C++, it currently seemed like learning Clojure as the optimal path of least resistance.
That is with a belief that I could learn Clojure better, easier, faster than C++, or at least a sufficient subset of C++ to work with NB.
I think going the Clojure route makes more sense, but I am strongly biased towards functional programming languages. It is a simpler language to learn than Java, yet one that provides much richer libraries. You won't, for instance, have to write a for loop to iterate over a collection. Just read "reduce" and think "inject: into:" and you're halfway there.
yeah.. i do not know anything about closure, to say anything for/against it, except one which i said in previous mail.
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.