Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Paul Donnelly <paul-donne...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| > What's another example of a way in which Clojure's design is tied to the
| > JVM?
...
| If you haven't already done so, work with clojure a bit. I think
| you'll see java leaking through a fair amount. The overall impression
| is of a language that was molded to the jvm, not an independent design
| - like scheme for example - that just happens to be hosted on the jvm.
+---------------

Hmmm... So maybe that's why RH is "waiting for the JVM to have TCO"
instead of just doing TCO in the Clojure language with whatever code
generation hacks (trampoline loops, stack hacks, etc.) are necessary
to wedge TCO onto the JVM the way SISC & Kawa & JScheme & Stella,
etc., etc., did long ago [without "waiting for the JVM"]. And just
like MzScheme & ChickenScheme, etc.,  did without waiting for C to
get TCO.

If TCO were important to Clojure's desired target community, it *could*
be added *now*, but it might seriously complicate the internals of the
current Clojure implementation. I would suspect, on the evidence presented
in this group so far, that TCO is simply not really that important in
the Clojure world, much as it's simply not that important in the Common
Lisp world, either. Is that so bad?!?


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607