Syntactic sugar to call Java from ABCL?

[Mark Evenson]

On 2016/3/5 21:31, EGarrulo wrote:

> Why do you prefer JSS over JFLI?  It seems to me that JFLI would blend 
> better with CL code (except for the unusual choice of not separating sub-
> words with dashes).  But, above all, JFLI generates methods that should be 
> available for code completion, unlike JSS, I think.

I used and developed JSS for years before encountering JFLI, so I won't
try to claim that my preference originates from anywhere close to a
dispassionate position.  But if I had to distill a single point of
differentiation for my preference, it would be to prefer the dynamic
introspection of JSS over the need to explicitly declare Java objects in
JFLI.  Coming from the static linkage of languages like Java and C, I
was initially quite skeptical that the "just name things in Java and let
the runtime figure out what you mean" approach of JSS wouldn't encounter
catastrophic problems.  But over years of developing quite large Common
Lisp/Java systems with JSS, I have yet to encounter a single such problem.

I actively encouraged the inclusion JFLI in ABCL-CONTRIB in the desire
to encourage and publicize experimentation in different approaches to
Java interoperability.  In my view, ABCL's strength over say, Clojure,
lies in a well defined language core in Common Lisp with built-in
extensibility (macros, an easily modifiable reader, etc.) sufficiently
powerful to develop various modalities  of interoperability with Java.
My hunch was that the specifics of interoperability might vary from user
to user, and will probably vary over time as well.  I am glad that JFLI
has more initial appeal to you, as this provides support for this view.


-- 
"A screaming comes across the sky.  It has happened before, but there
is nothing to compare to it now."