On Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:36:21 PM UTC-7, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>
> "Jim - FooBar();" writes:
>
> > Yes ok I do get that...but wouldn't you agree that is slightly easier
> > for plain Java than it is for clojure? Especially for someone that has
> > no idea how the clojure compiler works...fo
"Jim - FooBar();" writes:
> Yes ok I do get that...but wouldn't you agree that is slightly easier
> for plain Java than it is for clojure? Especially for someone that has
> no idea how the clojure compiler works...for example if you decompile
> a clojrue ns it just seems plain wrong!!!
>
> x = nu
Yes ok I do get that...but wouldn't you agree that is slightly easier
for plain Java than it is for clojure? Especially for someone that has
no idea how the clojure compiler works...for example if you decompile a
clojrue ns it just seems plain wrong!!!
x = null;
y= null;
//do something with x
"jim.foobar" writes:
> If we aot compile a namespace in clojure will it be harder to
> decompile than the Java equivalent? Recently, the concept of securing
> code came up where I work and was asked what Clojure does for
> that...Now, from what I've noticed libraries tend to be shipped with
> re
Hey guys I was just wondering
If we aot compile a namespace in clojure will it be harder to decompile
than the Java equivalent? Recently, the concept of securing code came up
where I work and was asked what Clojure does for that...Now, from what
I've noticed libraries tend to be shipped w
