On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:55:58 PM UTC+1, Santosh Rajan wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Alessio Stalla <alessi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > It could be written on top of Common Lisp. There are natively compiled, > > multithreaded, cross-platform implementations of it, and building on > another > > Lisp should be much easier than on C/C++. Of course, since Clojure > programs > > often rely on Java libraries to do some of their work, porting won't be a > > no-brainer. > > I am not a Clojure expert. But if I understood Clojure correctly, > Clojure would not be Clojure if it where natively compiled. Eg. The > whole lazy seq's are required because of lack of tail call > optimization in the JVM. Or am I wrong? >
I'm not an expert either, but as I understand it, some things are required, and others are strongly influenced, by the JVM. Lazy seqs are neither; recur is directly tied to the lack of TCO, though arguably it could be useful even with the availability of TCO; the try-catch-finally exception scheme is directly derived from Java and the JVM's constructs. Anyway, the biggest problem in porting Clojure-the-language to CL (or to some other high-level, managed language) is probably porting the library of datastructures, STM, etc., not the base language. Porting Clojure-the-ecosystem is much more difficult because, as I said, many libraries and frameworks are strongly tied to JVM libraries. Alessio -- 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
