On Jan 20, 3:14 am, e <evier...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
For me it doesn't make sense to invest in writing a GUI wrapper for Swing (and for SWT, Qt-whatever-was-it's-name) and make it work on a VVM (Virtual Virtual Machine). People who do and know GUI programming now, will find it easier to work with their GUI lib directly, instead of learning one more wrapper. Also there are quite a few differences with GUI libraries, and you'll have to think of a way to wrap these. And in the end you'll end up with imperfect wrapper which will miss specific features from each library it supports. The GUIs done with this wrapper will be most probably uglier or less functional than the ones done with the underlying library directly, so who would want to port them to VVM then? Besides, GUIs aren't the only thing. You can say the same for database access, persistence, sockets, and everything which is not (re) implemented in Clojure. For me, JVM is a good choice. JVM is multiplatform, with very good garbage collector and with tons of libraries. And it's getting better. IIRC, the only major complain Rich has about JVM is the lack of tail-call optimization. -- Ivan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
