On 10 November 2012 21:42, Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> 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. > 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. frank > If I could learn a subset of C++ sufficient to interface NB/Pharo with > ForexConnect, then I would be happy to do so. > http://forexforums.dailyfx.com/forexconnect/392705-forexconnect-api-subscribe-updates.html > Especially if I had a roadmap to help provide me with said proficiency and > that I could do so in equal or less time than spending with Clojure. > It is a pragmatic decision. Long term I want to spend my time in Pharo and > not in Clojure or C++, which is why I am attempting what at the moment > requires the least effort or at least by best guess appears to be so. > > I have found nothing that I can program and interactively explore and > experiment with better that Smalltalk/Pharo. It is most definitely my > preference to do so. And I so greatly appreciate all of the efforts being > made to make it an option more of the time. > > JavaConnect that Stéphane mentioned looks very interesting. > > I really appreciate your input into this. I can gauge the effort to learn > Clojure and I find it reasonable. C++ seems from the outside to be more > daunting. I could be wrong. Let me know if you have a different opinion. > > Thanks. > > Jimmie >
