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