On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:50:58 AM UTC-8, Uday Verma wrote: > > Hello Everyone, > > Basically the approach is this: cljs -> js -> rhino [3] -> bytecode. > Provides java interop through rhino. By the time things get to rhino, > google closure has already thrown away most of the runtime away since we > didn't use it, and we end up with manageable amount of JS which is compiled > to manageable amount of byte code. All of jvm is still available. >
Sounds like the clojure compiler could benefit from dead code elimination. I'm not sure if that is possible or not but it does sound like it might work. Compiles would probably take longer so the gains might be offset by longer compile times. If this is the case then it wouldn't help development workflows but could provide deployment/runtime gains. I'm wondering if the availability of eval in clojure and the lack of it in clojurescript makes a difference - it might lead to some code that can't be properly analyzed. Alan -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
