[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A language idea: Elle

--- 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

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

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

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

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.