faenvie wrote:
That is the most unsubstantiated, moronic piece of writing I've ever read in my
life. I can't really tell what he's attacking, he's just
swinging some dick-shaped sword around trying to hit stuff.
i do not agree ... its clear that the article is
a rant, does not go deep and misses important
facts (does not mention any of the great features
that clojure implements).
but he unerringly focuses on the most critical
point of clojure: its dependency on a host-runtime and
a host-language.
to abstract away from esp. java-language seems an
crucial thing ... and moves like clojure in clojure
address this. jvm7's dynamic-language-support will
also mitigate that point.
one thing i would like to know is: what are the advantages
of common-lisp running on a lisp-machine compared to
clojure running on the jvm ?
have a successful time
Well, on a Symbolics lisp machine, which I used for a couple years
you could hit an error which would pop you into emacs at the point of
the error. You could edit the file to correct the error and then continue
the computation from the point of failure with the new code.
The Symbolics machine (its kittens all the way down...) gave me the
insight that one of the most important parts of programming is the time
it takes to "close the loop". Start from the point of failure, find the
failure in source code, fix the failure, recompile, and re-execute.
Measure the time that takes. Call this cycle the OODA loop (after
the military acronym).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
On a Symbolics machine, the OODA loop takes seconds. In Java
it can take many minutes to an hour or more. Common lisp on stock
hardware takes about a factor of 10 less than Java. Your OODA
loop time may vary.
But the important point is that this OODA loop is a vital measure
of how productive a language and its environment can be. By any
measure, the Symbolics lisp machine was exceptional.
In Clojure I find that I'm constantly struggling with something to
do with the impedance mismatch between the Clojure code and
the Java code. A large part of this is due to my lack of experience
in Clojure but I find that my OODA loop takes a long time. I can
code in either language but it is the mixture of the two that seems
to be the source of my troubles.
Measure your OODA loop in all the languages you know.
See which one cycles fastest. I'd bet that's your favorite language.
Tim Daly
--
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
