On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:36:21 PM UTC-7, Phil Hagelberg wrote: > > "Jim - FooBar();" <jimpil1...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Yes ok I do get that...but wouldn't you agree that is slightly easier > > for plain Java than it is for clojure? Especially for someone that has > > no idea how the clojure compiler works...for example if you decompile > > a clojrue ns it just seems plain wrong!!! > > > > x = null; > > y= null; > > //do something with x and y > > > > This is just plain confusing for a a java person isn't it? > > Sure, it always depends on how much someone wants to figure it out. If > they're determined I'm sure they can figure out how locals-clearing > works. Reconstructing something approximating the original Clojure > source from bytecode is probably very hard, but learning how the program > works is not necessarily.
It's really not that hard - for any given function, reconstructing what it does from the bytecode is mostly a matter of tedium, not of genius. Closures are a little more complicated because you have to figure out what context they fit into, but it's not terribly difficult because the Clojure compiler is pretty regular about how it does things. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
