5 ms·

> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython. This is another reason we should

> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython. This is another reason we should be grateful for Clojure. It will have a .Net implementation soon, too.

fogus 17y ago
For some value of "soon"
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  http://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr/tree/master http://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr/tree/master http://blog.n01se.net/?p=41 http://blog.n01se.net/?p=41 http://clojure.org/todo http://clojure.org/todo As a rule, things move pretty fast in Clojure-land. And in the beginning it was dual-platform, so it's not really a new idea either.
  - ynniv 17y ago
    From [ http://clojure.blip.tv/file/1313398/ http://clojure.blip.tv/file/1313398/ ] I got the impression that Clojure on the CLR was back-burner at best. There appears to be only one committer to the CLR source base since February (possibly longer).
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - fogus 17y ago
      I believe the greater push is to write Clojure in Clojure which will (hopefully) facilitate targetting other platforms.
      - licoresse 17y ago
        Yes, like some did with Squeak. You can generate a vm using Squeak itself, so it will easily flow to other places
KirinDave 17y ago
I see two problems with this statement: 1. This only works if you're willing to seclude yourself in the Microsoft Yurt and never leave. Technical benefits aside, history has shown MS is not afraid to abandon projects. It's a dangerous position to take, in my opinion. And I sincerely doubt a port of Clojure to .NET would result in a 0-difference result. We're back to the exact same problem that plagues other lisp implementations right now, which is to say we haven't really bought much. 2. It's not that different from how things are in the C world, save that you'd share more of your runtime infrastructure. My job has been full of instances where an executable interacts with a diverse set of languages. One example I work on daily includes Erlang, Ruby, Prolog, and C++ all in one space, calling around (in a structured way, of course). The implication that you cannot make modern languages communicate without a single umbrella runtime is demonstrably false.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  What I meant was now you have an ecology of languages on the jvm (Clojure, JRuby, JPython, Scala, Groovy...), and on top of this a .NET port is in the works. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.
joechung 17y ago
I thought Rich Hickey abandoned the .NET version of Clojure a couple years ago?
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Yes, but it's alive again. Though I'm more excited about the clojure-in-clojure thing - it will eventually make it easily portable on a whole lot of platforms.
rbanffy 17y ago
And why would be able to run it on .NET would be some reason to be grateful?

fogus 17y ago

For some value of "soon"

radu_floricica 17y ago
http://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr/tree/master http://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr/tree/master http://blog.n01se.net/?p=41 http://blog.n01se.net/?p=41 http://clojure.org/todo http://clojure.org/todo As a rule, things move pretty fast in Clojure-land. And in the beginning it was dual-platform, so it's not really a new idea either.
- ynniv 17y ago
  From [ http://clojure.blip.tv/file/1313398/ http://clojure.blip.tv/file/1313398/ ] I got the impression that Clojure on the CLR was back-burner at best. There appears to be only one committer to the CLR source base since February (possibly longer).
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - fogus 17y ago
    I believe the greater push is to write Clojure in Clojure which will (hopefully) facilitate targetting other platforms.
    - licoresse 17y ago
      Yes, like some did with Squeak. You can generate a vm using Squeak itself, so it will easily flow to other places

KirinDave 17y ago

I see two problems with this statement: 1. This only works if you're willing to seclude yourself in the Microsoft Yurt and never leave. Technical benefits aside, history has shown MS is not afraid to abandon projects. It's a dangerous position to take, in my opinion. And I sincerely doubt a port of Clojure to .NET would result in a 0-difference result. We're back to the exact same problem that plagues other lisp implementations right now, which is to say we haven't really bought much. 2. It's not that different from how things are in the C world, save that you'd share more of your runtime infrastructure. My job has been full of instances where an executable interacts with a diverse set of languages. One example I work on daily includes Erlang, Ruby, Prolog, and C++ all in one space, calling around (in a structured way, of course). The implication that you cannot make modern languages communicate without a single umbrella runtime is demonstrably false.

radu_floricica 17y ago
What I meant was now you have an ecology of languages on the jvm (Clojure, JRuby, JPython, Scala, Groovy...), and on top of this a .NET port is in the works. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.

joechung 17y ago

I thought Rich Hickey abandoned the .NET version of Clojure a couple years ago?

radu_floricica 17y ago
Yes, but it's alive again. Though I'm more excited about the clojure-in-clojure thing - it will eventually make it easily portable on a whole lot of platforms.

rbanffy 17y ago

And why would be able to run it on .NET would be some reason to be grateful?