<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: And you get all the VM libraries for free! Is it actually what I want when I switch languages?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/</link>
	<description>Sadek Drobi</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:56:20 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sadache</title>
		<link>http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-2959</link>
		<dc:creator>Sadache</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/#comment-2959</guid>
		<description>@Gabriel
I agree. My point is that you can&#039;t satisfy the promise of seamless integration and interoperability if you don&#039;t at least wrap the existing libraries for the target paradigm.
As I mentioned above in the post, I don&#039;t want to go implementing mature libraries from scratch, but it would be kind of nice to have them wrapped and adapted for the new language.
And of course I am not doubting the benefits of runtime capabilities you get, it is a big opportunity to be able to deploy on an already mature VM. However, vm specific libraries limit portability, and sometimes don&#039;t fit with language paradigm, at least not out of the box.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Gabriel<br />
I agree. My point is that you can&#8217;t satisfy the promise of seamless integration and interoperability if you don&#8217;t at least wrap the existing libraries for the target paradigm.<br />
As I mentioned above in the post, I don&#8217;t want to go implementing mature libraries from scratch, but it would be kind of nice to have them wrapped and adapted for the new language.<br />
And of course I am not doubting the benefits of runtime capabilities you get, it is a big opportunity to be able to deploy on an already mature VM. However, vm specific libraries limit portability, and sometimes don&#8217;t fit with language paradigm, at least not out of the box.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gabriel C.</title>
		<link>http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-2954</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/#comment-2954</guid>
		<description>I understand what you&#039;re saying, but... you really want to implement your TCP/IP stack from scratch? or your web server? or your security libraries? I prefer to leverage existing the infrastructure and focus on solving the problem. If the language is successful, new libraries will appear that better reflect the language&#039;s philosophy (or as you say, a wrapper that hides the &quot;ugliness&quot;, at least).
Also, if you&#039;re using the JVM/CLR libraries as containers for your code, you can maintain all the paradigm&#039;s purity but leverage the runtime capabilities of the architecture (distribution, load balancing, monitoring, etc...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand what you&#8217;re saying, but&#8230; you really want to implement your TCP/IP stack from scratch? or your web server? or your security libraries? I prefer to leverage existing the infrastructure and focus on solving the problem. If the language is successful, new libraries will appear that better reflect the language&#8217;s philosophy (or as you say, a wrapper that hides the &#8220;ugliness&#8221;, at least).<br />
Also, if you&#8217;re using the JVM/CLR libraries as containers for your code, you can maintain all the paradigm&#8217;s purity but leverage the runtime capabilities of the architecture (distribution, load balancing, monitoring, etc&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-2949</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sadekdrobi.com/2008/06/01/and-you-get-all-the-vm-libraries-for-free-is-it-actually-what-i-want-when-i-switch-languages/#comment-2949</guid>
		<description>Not only it makes the your code ugly, it also adds weired feature to these later developped languages. Look at the Ruby experience, Ruby came with its proper frameworks for persistence and web and that is why I love it. I don&#039;t think this promise is benefitial, at least not as much as it claims to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not only it makes the your code ugly, it also adds weired feature to these later developped languages. Look at the Ruby experience, Ruby came with its proper frameworks for persistence and web and that is why I love it. I don&#8217;t think this promise is benefitial, at least not as much as it claims to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
