On 10 November 2012 23:33, Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Frank, > > > On 11/10/2012 4:05 PM, Frank Shearar 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. > > > What I was referencing is that no one would want to use Clojure to interface > with Java in order to access code in a C++ DLL. I agree that Clojure is > nicer 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. > > Yes, I understand. Not trying to avoid the net. What I was stating is that I > would either write my entire application in Clojure, or I would write the > part which accesses FXCM's API and serve it to Pharo via http/websockets. > Currently I have a Python/COM setup which serves my Pharo app via http. > >>> 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 > > I like Clojure, but I really, really like Smalltalk/Pharo. I also have > significant time and code in Pharo which would have be rewritten in Clojure > should I choose a Clojure route. So currently I really favor solutions which > keep me in Pharo. I do like Clojure as the best non-Pharo solution.
Of course! I meant that if you had to write in another language, Clojure seems much more attractive than either Java or C++. frank > Jimmie >
