On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 9 Sep., 20:46, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups. > 620...@mired.org> wrote: > > > The first problem with that is that this stuff seems show up > > *everywhere* in Javaland. It's not just web apps, it's pretty much > > anything. > > You just lost me completely with your argumentation. I wrote a small > desktop utility (simple problem, simple solution, simple program) > which is distributed to different locations in the company. It works > on Windows and Unix w/o adaption to the system. Download jar and > double-click / execute via java -jar. It works without library version > hell, complicated Makefiles, system differences and other shenanigans. > I'm quite willing to pay more complexity upfront to have it easier in > the end. Ok, let's see how this goes: With simple things are simple tools, for a simple problem with a simple solution and a simple program, the solution goes like this: 1) Write program in chosen unix-friendly interpreted language. 2) Distribute program text file. Users can then run it via double-clicking (mac & windows), running it directly on the command line (mac & unix) or - under extreme duress - running it via the interpreter on the command line. As far as I can tell, to do the same thing with Java tools, the steps are: 1) Write program in chosen language that runs on the JVM. 2) Compile program to class file(s). 3) Use some tool to create a manifest file. 4) Run jar to create jar file. 5) Distribute jar file. Users can then run it via double-clicking (mac & windows) or via the interpreter on the command line (mac & unix). There is no option to run it directly on the command line. Possibly some tool will do steps 3 and 4 in single step for you. So the Javaland tools take at least twice as many steps, and deliver a solution that's harder to use in some cases. Of course, I'm not as familiar with Javaland tools as I am Unix tools, so maybe I got it wrong. If so, *please* tell me the better way! > It is obvious that Clojure doesn't fit your needs. Then simply don't > use it. Wrong. It may be that the Java infrastructure that Clojure runs in is baroque enough that I won't be willing to use it. Then the same would be true of any language running on the JVM. On the other hand, a Clojure that ran on, oh, Parrot just for instance, wouldn't have any of these problems. <mike -- Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- 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
