4 ms·
Funny how the author complains about Clojure because it compiles to JVM bytecode, and then chooses another LISP compiled to... another kind of bytecode? > The
by haspok 5y ago
Funny how the author complains about Clojure because it compiles to JVM bytecode, and then chooses another LISP compiled to... another kind of bytecode?
> The Janet language is implemented on top of an abstract machine (AM).
Greenspun's tenth rule comes into my mind.
For comparison, the JVM has been developed for almost 30 years now, hundreds of thousands of hours were invested in it, runs virtually on every platform on a planet. It has advanced JIT and GC capabilities, and can compile to native.
Even Clojure has been around for about 15 years now, and it has successfully carved its niche in the Java world.
Janet on the other hand... is a 4 years old hobby project? No disrespect, but they are not in the same league.
Just a side note: it is probably the easiest thing in the world to implement your own LISP - it is a fun thing to do, you can start very small and get something working within hours. So if you are into it, you should probably roll your own too!
- woolion 5y agoAuthor does not complain that it is compiled to bytecode, he complains that the language is tied to the Java environment, and prefers one that is tied to C. He prefers this because of the investment he already has in this environment, as well as it's philosophy and practice (programming in Java world is assuredly something else). When you start with "no disrespect", with high probability what follows is disrespectful. Did he make the claim Janet was in the same league? He starts by clearly mentioning this is in the scope of his side-projects, so enjoyments trumps marketability.
- Tainnor 5y agoI mean, the author mentions elsewhere in this thread (and on his website) that they switched back to Ruby on Rails because they needed to ship.