Re: A language idea: Elle

[Reginald Braithwaite-Lee <address@hidden>]

--- Sundar Narasimhan <sundar@ascent.com> wrote:


> And by all means.. if you want to build on top of Java -- go
> ahead. All I was trying to suggest was that buzzword compatibility
> was not a necessary or sufficient condition "for me". 

I quite understand: when I wrote an online image database for a friend,
I tried Java then abandoned it in favour of PHP and MySQL
<http://www.braithwaite-lee.com/source/index.html#PHP>.

Your messages have been very helpful. I need to clarify whether
J2EE/XML comptibility is a means or an end.

Option One: Means
-----------------

Elle has a wonderful new idea unrelated to J2EE or XML.

Compatibility is a marketing tactic for getting it beyond the "early
adopters."

Option Two: End
---------------

Compatibility IS the wonderful new idea.

Elle isn't about getting J2EE programmers to try lightweight languages:
Elle is about getting/enabling lightweight language programmers to use
the J2EE architecture.

*****

Right now, I'm thinking the answer is Option Two: I'm trying to get a
lightweight language programmer to use the J2EE architecture.

That being said, compatibility  is a very tough thing. It goes beyond
compiling to Java .class files and providing interfaces for the Java
libraries.

In a corporate environment, human resources are a key factor in the
tool decision. If Lisp programmers are rare, managers are loathe to
have their intellectual property written in Lisp, even if it runs on
the Java Virtual Machine.

This is why I'm very interested in being able to have source code
compatibility.

--
Reginald Braithwaite-Lee
work: rlee@infobal.com | http://www.infobal.com
personal: reg@braithwaite-lee.com | http://www.braithwaite-lee.com

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. -
Albert Einstein


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com