Clozure and Clojure
ccc31807
so I guess I have a couple of 'meta' questions that really aren't
addressed.
What is the relationship between Clozure and Clojure? Is the
similarity of the names coincidental, or does it have a basis in fact?
Clojure compiles to Java bytecode. Does Clozure do the same? If not,
does it compile to some sort of machine code (i.e. an exe file) or
does it result in some sort of bytecode interpreted by Clozure?
Is there any significant advantage to one, or do they have comparable
capabilities?
And yes, I know that they are different languages.
TIA, CC.
Pascal Costanza
> I've already read http://trac.clozure.com/ccl and http://clojure.org/,
> so I guess I have a couple of 'meta' questions that really aren't
> addressed.
>
> What is the relationship between Clozure and Clojure? Is the
> similarity of the names coincidental, or does it have a basis in fact?
It's coincidental. They have nothing in common whatsoever. (Well, other
than that they are Lisp dialects... ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Thomas A. Russ
> I've already read http://trac.clozure.com/ccl and http://clojure.org/,
> so I guess I have a couple of 'meta' questions that really aren't
> addressed.
>
> What is the relationship between Clozure and Clojure? Is the
> similarity of the names coincidental, or does it have a basis in fact?
Well, neither.
They are separate efforts, but presumably both trace their names to the
notion of "closures" in Lisp.
Clozure, I'm fairly certain came first. It just used a simple "s->z"
transformation. Clojure comes up with a similar pronounciation by using
a "j", which also serves to indicate its connection with Java.
> Clojure compiles to Java bytecode. Does Clozure do the same? If not,
> does it compile to some sort of machine code (i.e. an exe file) or
> does it result in some sort of bytecode interpreted by Clozure?
AFAIK CCL compiles to native machine code.
> Is there any significant advantage to one, or do they have comparable
> capabilities?
Clojure doesn't try to be a full Common Lisp. It is more oriented
toward integration with Java and the JVM. Clozure CL is a full
implementation of the Common Lisp standard.
There are a lot of other differences as well.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
André Thieme
Try both.
After just a few days it will become very obvious for you which you
prefer.
Andr�
--
Lisp is not dead. It�s just the URL that has changed:
http://clojure.org/
Raffael Cavallaro
> It's coincidental.
Largely, yes. They both stem from the same pun on "closure."
> They have nothing in common whatsoever.
Mikel Evins? :^)
(Mikel works for Clozure Associates, the source of Clozure Common
Lisp, and he has also written a fair amount of Clojure code,
specifically, a very flexible generic function system for clojure).
Seriously, Clozure Associates is descended from the group that did the
orginal Coral Common Lisp (1987) which became Macintosh Common Lisp
aka. MCL, in 1989. In 1998, Gary Byers did a contract for NASA at the
request of Ron Garret (when he was still Erann Gat) to port MCL to
VxWorks and LinuxPPC. In 2001 this port was open sourced as OpenMCL,
and itself was ported (in order) to Mac OS X ppc, Mac OS X intel-64
(x86-64), Mac OS X intel-32, and Windows.
In 2000, the people responsible for creating MCL, including Gary Byers,
Gail Zacharias, and Jeremy Jones, and others, formed a lisp consulting
company called Clozure associates (pun on "closure"). All this time,
the internal package of MCL and OpenMCL continued to be CCL (originally
for Coral Common Lisp, which is also why the icon for MCL (not CCL) is
a coral under the sea). All of these versions of
CCL/MCL/OpenMCL/Clozure Common Lisp were natively compiled. None of
them ran/run on the JVM.
When the commercial MCL went open source this presented a serious
source of confusion wrt the already open source OpenMCL. So OpenMCL
became Clozure Common Lisp, which made the internal package name, CCL,
"correct" again.
Meanwhile, two years ago, Rich Hickey created a new language, a lisp-1
that runs on the JVM and named it "Clojure" with a "j," also a pun on
"closure." Clojure is *not* a common lisp, not a scheme, but a new and
separate lisp dialect.
Others (Ron? Mikel?) will have a better/more complete understanding of
the chronology, so please correct any errors I have made.
--
Raffael Cavallaro
Ron Garret
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelc...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>
wrote:
AFAIK you got it exactly right.
rg