On Feb 16, 5:33 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:43 PM, dmiller <dmiller2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know if you've looked at ClojureScript at all, but it's a
> similar if noticeably less ambitious project to compile Clojure code to
> JavaScript. It's in clojure-contrib already, but in
> trunk/clojurescript instead of trunk/src. My reasons for this were
> (1) I wasn't quite sure how to lay out the directory structure and
> didn't want to mess up anyone else, and (2) it doesn't work with
> Clojure trunk but instead requires a patch and rebuild of Clojure
> itself. This patch is stored right there in contrib as well.
>
I have looked briefly at ClojureScript.
Placement: I'm guessing a parallel off-trunk placement. This code is
completely independent of Clojure/JVM, except for the bootstrap *.clj
files. I have those included in the project, so I'm not broken by
Clojure/JVM changes.
Also, this code is not set up for casual play. You need to be in
Visual Studio, download the DLR, connect Tab A to Slot B, etc. I'm
thinking it should not be in trunk/src by the criteria you cite.
> This is the majority of what the ClojureScript patch changes -- moving
> explicit uses of non-Clojure Java class names out of .clj files and
> into clojure.lang.RT (or other appropriate Clojure classes) so that
> the .clj can be loaded as-is. RT and Numbers have to be ported by
> hand anyway, so it's not significantly worse on that end.
>
> I'd be very interested to compare notes and see if our needs have a
> common solution.
>
I need to make the same kinds of changes to the *.clj files. This has
not been automated yet, so being in synch is a matter of hand-
editing.
We most definitely need to compare notes.
> Sounds great! But there's one very important question you didn't
> address. What are you going to call it? :-)
>
> Seriously, though, since it seems likely that a majority of code
> written to run on your port will not work on Clojure/JVM, because of
> the runtime libs available (please correct me if I'm wrong), it's
> important for a body of code to be able to clearly declare where it's
> supposed to work. A name that is used consistently can help, I would
> think.
>
This is 100% C#/.NET.
I'm up for suggestions on the name. The obvious ones:
- Clojure.net
- ClojureCLR
- IronClojure (paralleling IronPython/IronRuby, unless MS has Iron
trademarked.)
- CLjR (too cute)
Perhaps Rich will have a preference. He'll have to live with it
longer than anyone and has branding/confusion issues to keep in mind.
-- David
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
