Re: Re: Java API

On Monday 20 February 2006 09:57 pm, Raymond Martin wrote:
> A more compelling reason to interface to java is the extensive number of libraries
> (many open source ones are available through the Apache project [Jakarta Commons, etc.], 
> for instance.

A possible side effect of this would be that the bindings can be done automatically.
Compile your library with gcj, mod-load it, and all its classes and 
functions appear magically in lush...

> A version of Lush written in Java is even feasible, with the advantages of running 
> on more platforms and being more easily maintained (working with Java is more 
> efficient in the long term, than say C++.

That is another story. It would then make sense for the 
lush compiler to produce java bytecode instead of C,
and to embed a JIT in the runtime. This is certainly doable, 
could be interesting, but this is not lush.
Lush uses the ordinary runtime of C programs,
in order to maximally leverage the huge existing
code base that assumes this kind of runtime.
If lush was using the java runtime, one would 
have to use an extra layer to call these libraries
and an extra language to deal with...

- L.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642