TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

From C# on Mono, to Clojure on the JVM

43 点作者 mariorz将近 16 年前

5 条评论

abdulhaq将近 16 年前
His opinions about the merits of python vs lisp vs clojure seem based more on rumour and the current lisp/clojure kool-aid than on hard-earned hands-on experience. I love Lisp when coding by myself and Clojure sounds really interesting, but Python is currently rock solid and a better fit for real-world team based development. And it's fine for functional programming, contrary to the strange opinion in the article that Guido is well-known to be 'against' functional programming !?
评论 #656167 未加载
DanielBMarkham将近 16 年前
I must have missed something about this platform transition.<p>First and foremost, where are his customers in all of this? Languages are tools to reach goals for humans. What goals did he not accomplish because of using Mono and C#? What specific business objectives were impaired? How would these goals be more easily achieved now?<p>Secondly, I find it odd that a position on patents would work it's way into a tools choice without there being some kind of firm evidence of trouble. Did Microsoft's decision change the technical environment? Were there problems with building or maintaining code? Or did Microsoft just tick off the open source community and that made him decide to change? Perhaps I missed something, but it was sounding like he was making platform decisions based on some kind of popularity contest or imagined threat. Like I said, I'm ignorant here. Perhaps Microsoft's move has real-world ramifications? If so, I didn't see them in the article.<p>Finally -- what about F# on mono? You've got all the functional programming you can throw a stick at. And you've got objects as well if you want them. I didn't see that come into consideration at any point, although it seemed relevant -- if his interest was functional languages.<p>I also found the comment about the .exe and .dll file extensions weird. So people think they're strange? So what? Once again, what does this practically mean to developers or maintainers? Did it cause real problems? Or does it just look bad?<p>Language and platform discussions always come down to defining criteria: you determine what criteria are important to you and make your decision around that. Sometimes it's speed or conciseness. Sometimes it's availability of programmers. Sometimes it's ability to grow and maintain large code bases.<p>Whatever the criteria, you have to establish them and the stick to them. I prefer "ability to provide value to customers as quickly as possible" over things like "ability to run in parallel" or "ability to easily find programmers", but to each his own. There are great arguments to be made for all kinds of criteria.<p>What I didn't see was what exact criteria was being used. Sounded more like somebody just chasing whatever was trendy at the time.
评论 #656479 未加载
khandekars将近 16 年前
Thanks. Having actually used Mono on Linux, he shared some interesting observations. Clojure surely looks promising, but Python or Scala can be equally fine choices as of the moment.
lispm将近 16 年前
If I need to run my programming language to run on top of the infrastructure of another program language to use its services, the designers made something wrong. Today larger applications are based on layers communicating with each other over all kinds of ways. Deeply embedding is just one way.<p>I also think that developers should do more than read books to evaluate a technology. Reading Lisp books is surely not sufficient - eventually the author now was able to use a Lisp dialect and not only read about it. The author is also mostly guessing that 'Clojure has all the benefits of LISP' without having used other Lisps.
评论 #656333 未加载
stefano将近 16 年前
<p><pre><code> "Although I was unable to use LISP in any production code" </code></pre> Does he refer to LISP 1.5?