On 10 November 2012 19:05, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > 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.
