On 02/02/15 15:50, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Jakob,
>> Which makes me wonder about Ersatz PicoLisp though.
>> How would it stand against other JVM alternatives? I know that Ersatz is
>> not as
>> fast as native PicoLisp. But for instance Groovy, is really slow on the JVM.
>> Maybe Ersatz would be fast enough for serious work too, if Groovy is.
> But why bother to use Ersatz at all? And not the real thing?

For using with Java? It depends. If I had a say of the deployment stack,
yes, then why not use the real thing.
I would choose native PicoLisp in a heartbeat!
This bridge you developed is really good for mixing
native PicoLisp performance with Java ecosystem.

But sometimes the programmers don't have anything to say about
how the servers are run - they just are told that "we deploy the JVM
with this and this version". They can use any language, just as long
as that language works *inside* the JVM.
In those instances, alternatives such as Ersatz are really nice.

(By the way I really meant to say Clojure, not Groovy, but it doesn't
matter. Ersatz could be a competitor to all the JVM languages.)

best regards,

UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to