Hi, Jimmie i took a brief look at the library and interfaces it provides. To my opinion, if i would need to use it, i'd rather make a VM plugin for it. First, since its C++, and you need to write wrapper, making wrapper as a VM plugin is better than just another C library which you need to link via FFI.
Connecting to java: yes its possible, but then it means that you will have a java runtime in your process, which is much heavyweight.. Just want to say, that if efficiency is issue, i would go for VM plugin. But since you are not me, the price of learning C++/Java may be too high, and i understand why you looking for alternatives. But in your place i would advise you to learn C++ basics. It will open a door to other languages of C family (because of similar syntax & rules). You may/will need it one day anyways :) On 10 November 2012 18:42, 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++ :) > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
