That's a solid arg, too . . . but it would be stronger if we weren't importing things from java all the time. If we said like, "(gui-frame "hello"), which happened to be implemented as a JFrame . . . then that'd be even stronger. Drop in a different REPL and you'd still get a JFrame-like thing even if it weren't from a java lib via a JVM.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mark H. <mark.hoem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 8:48 am, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's a great argument. I need arguments like these. I work with > people > > who dismiss JVM. Even though there are many non-Sun JVM's, folks say, > "Sun > > is dead -> java is dead -> jvm is dead." ..... even though Java is the > most > > popular language right now. > http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html > > A lot of people agree that having some kind of VM is very helpful. It > may not necessarily be the JVM in the future, but right now the JVM is > popular enough that it's worth using it rather than relying on some > other VM that might also go away. VMs provide portability, can do a > lot of low-level optimizations (that would otherwise have to go into > the compiler), and have useful services (like garbage collection) that > save folks like Rich a lot of trouble when implementing a new > language. > > Saying we shouldn't use the JVM because Sun might go away is like > saying we shouldn't bother improving gas mileage in cars because > gasoline might go away. (Of course it pays to think about the long > term, but shorter-term gains are worth the work.) > > mfh > > > > > > > I wonder if there will ever be a JM ... that is a chip that natively > > executes byte code. I wonder what they'd have to say, then. I think > I'll > > do a Google search. I also wonder if it was a tough decision for Rich to > > cut the CLI support. I know he feels fine looking back. > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Mark H. <mark.hoem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:47 am, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code? > > > > > I'll chime in too to say that x86 is only king of the desktop / laptop > > > world -- many portable devices are ARM-based (and a lot of Windows > > > apps run on ARM), and there are other architectures used for > > > enterprise and HPC servers. Plus it's not clear to me that x86 will > > > win, esp. in power-constrained arenas. (All those legacy instructions > > > and the translation from x86 ops into reasonable microops eat power > > > and area.) I've dealt with at least six different instruction sets in > > > my HPC work and the JVM runs on at least five of them: instant > > > portability! > > > > > mfh > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
