I generally agree with alot the autor said and I will surly check out kernel.
About JITs
----------------
I agree that Scheme missed the JIT thing. Most Scheme compiler are AOT but Scheme would be nice to do research in JITs for dynamic languages. Now we have it in JS witch is more complicated. It would be nice if there would be a fast and small JIT for Scheme that is good for learning. is there something like that? I know Racket has something like that but Racket is much more then just a JIT for Scheme.
About Clojure
----------------
I think the author missunderstands Clojure (not just in this article). The "see the need (... of eval)"-statment was not about eval in general. Clojure has eval. The statmand was about having eval in ClojureScript (Clojure that AOT Compiles to JS) and there is not a priorety because its need is much less then the usfullness.
Clojure wants to be practical now and not be revolutionary. It never said it want to be ideal it just makes the best of what we have.
About JITs ----------------
I agree that Scheme missed the JIT thing. Most Scheme compiler are AOT but Scheme would be nice to do research in JITs for dynamic languages. Now we have it in JS witch is more complicated. It would be nice if there would be a fast and small JIT for Scheme that is good for learning. is there something like that? I know Racket has something like that but Racket is much more then just a JIT for Scheme.
About Clojure ----------------
I think the author missunderstands Clojure (not just in this article). The "see the need (... of eval)"-statment was not about eval in general. Clojure has eval. The statmand was about having eval in ClojureScript (Clojure that AOT Compiles to JS) and there is not a priorety because its need is much less then the usfullness.
Clojure wants to be practical now and not be revolutionary. It never said it want to be ideal it just makes the best of what we have.