2010/9/10 Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de>: > Hi, > > On 10 Sep., 10:27, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> while I admit I haven't read *all* the answers to Meikel's question in >> their entirety, what I've understood is that : >> >> * he's not talking about clojure the language, but its ecosystem >> (the JVM host and the J2EE stuff -de facto standard for webapps) >> => so I disagree with you, clojure *may* fit its needs > > I'm also not talking about clojure the language, but about the > ecosystem. To deploy my simply (a detail, but since we are talking > about "Hello, World"...) clojure (a detail, could written in groovy, > scala, java, ...) program I used gradle (written in Groovy, useful for > other JVM stuff), several maven repos and the JRE (part of the JVM > environment). I just packed everything in jar distributed it around > the world and it worked in a heterogeneous environment without further > support. How much simpler can it get? > > What I actually wanted to point out: there is no "simple". "simple" is > highly subjective and talking about "simple" in absolute terms is a > mistake. > >> * AFAIK the state of the art for clojure hosted on the JVM is not >> fixed, so I don't see why your advice to him is to not use it. > > Because it obviously doesn't fit his needs. Mike wants a simple > solution for simple problems. It seems that at the moment there is no > JVM solution that is simple enough for Mike's context. So he shouldn't > use Clojure. Or Groovy. Or Scala. Clojure being just a detail of his > problem (Mike states several times, that he talks about the JVM > environment not the language.) > > When things change and complexity is reduced for his context, Mike can > re-evaluate the use of Clojure. And if the whole system fits the bill, > he might even choose to use Clojure for future projects. > > Isn't that a reasonable approach? > >> Beware trying too hard to defend a position which is not defendable. > > I'm not defending a lost position. There are other tools which fit > Mike's needs better than clojure *at the moment*. So there is no point > trying to convince him. > > That doesn't mean that we shouldn't change the situation and make > things "simpler" (for some definition of simple).
That's what I wanted to read, 'cause "the state of your previous answer" seemed so negative ! :-) > > Sincerely > Meikel > > -- > 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 -- 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
