On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Abhishek Reddy <arbs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Speaking for myself, as the author of the original Snake example, I > had no intention of converting developers to Clojure, or of producing > instructive or readable code, with that snippet. > > While I agree with some of your critique, I do think it is misplaced. > The aim of this particular exercise was to produce an _abnormally_ > terse program, after all. > > If you believe there is some utility in producing a more readable > version, as a tutorial, do not hesitate to make one and publish it! > I'll be happy to direct readers to it. :-)
I apologize for the nature of my email which somewhat singled you out. I would like to produce a version of the snake code that could serve as an example of the kind of code that the Clojure community thinks is "good". Unless it's part of an exercise to produce the shortest code possible, I think we should always write Clojure code with a goal of making it as easy as possible for others to read, while not attempting to serve as a Clojure tutorial. Again, my goal here is to get more developers to give Clojure a shot. My challenge to everyone on the list is to start with any version of the snake code you've seen and make it as readable as *you* think it should be by doing things like renaming variables and functions, adding comments and changing indentation. I'd really like to see what *you* think is the best way to write this code. The lessons learned from this exercise could then be applied to other code we write in the future. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
