[erlang-questions] Erlang vs Clojure
Sun Nov 25 13:46:22 CET 2007
I am against bending the language to fit the task, but I am not in favour of
bending a specific reality (i.e. JVM) either.
This is what I'm saying: don't treat the symptoms -- cure the disease.
And further yet: one that sleeps with dogs, will, eventually, end up with
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin" <>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Erlang vs Clojure
> That could be a testimonial of the failure of the Java Language, but
> it might be a success story for the Java Virtual Machine.
> The interesting thing about those 287 languages is that they work both
> ways. It is not only that you can call existing Java libraries, but
> you can embed those 287 languages within your application. It is like
> selecting any language for the task at hand rather than bending the
> language you have to fit every task.
> Projects like Jython and JRuby are really picking up steam. JRuby
> v1.1 now out performs the C Ruby interpreter.
> On Nov 25, 2:56 am, "Valentin Micic" <> wrote:
>> Couldn't these ~300 languages you're mentioning serve as the best
>> testimonial about magnitude of Java's failure?
>> Running these language on top of JVM looks to me like having a headache
>> attempting to cure it by hitting ones kneecap with a big hammer. Hey,
>> is no longer hurting, but good that you're not asking about my knee...
>> The cure is: have a healthier life-style. Erlang is one option, the
>> I've been considering career in agriculture for quite some time now ;-).
>> Power of Erlang, IMHO, is substantially embedded in a language itself,
>> assuming that Erlang is not suitable for everything, instead of
>> "dot-netting" (*) the environment, one should just continue doing what
>> been doing: integrate with the external environment, whilst preserving
>> identity -- if Erlang is to strive (and, my God, it worked so well for me
>> during the last six years), one *must* evangelize the language, not the
>> (*) Java, IMHO, was never a step forward. It was a reaction to
>> domination of the world... So, when Microsoft introduced dot-net, a (bit
>> delayed) reaction was to introduce a bunch of new languages to run on top
>> JVM, to counter a new threat. Why should Erlang sing the same tune? Or am
>> too cynical?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robin Bhattacharyya" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:12 AM
>> Subject: [erlang-questions] Erlang vs Clojure
>> > Smerl manipulates erlang at the abstract form, so smerl is kinda like
>> > a lisp macro. A lispy erlang would make erlang easier to manipulate.
>> > Paul Graham makes the case in his book On Lisp that some special forms
>> > are only possible by using macros.
>> > Rich Hickey, the author of Clojure, makes the case that in the past
>> > lisps failed to catch on because they were off on an "island" with
>> > their own runtimes. The legacy of Java will be the JVM not the Java
>> > language, as there are currently ~300 languages targeting the JVM.
>> > I think a lispy syntax, with the concurrency principles of Erlang,
>> > running on the JVM runtime, could be a powerful combination.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions