Hi group, This is an interesting discussion and perhaps not a bad one to dive into up front.
Currently (as I see it) all major decision making comes straight from Rich - He decides which features to implement/extend and if they go into core or not. It would probably be a good idea to move in the direction of a group of programmers who understood all Richs reasoning and as a whole could substitute him if he decided to leave. This again, lies with Rich. /Lau On Aug 2, 5:03 am, fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 7:24 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Vagif Verdi<vagif.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Since i'm using clojure in my business i got worried at a sudden > > > thought what would happen to clojure if Ruch calls it a day. > > > If Rich quit working on Clojure for whatever reason, it > > would be a huge blow to the potential future of Clojure. > > That is, Clojure is not yet done, and I don't know of anyone > > with the focus, drive, and design sensibility needed to take > > it to where it could be, other than Rich. > > I think there is a huge difference between Clojure and Qi. Clojure was > created by the author "for himself". Tarver created Qi so that others > could go forth and program in it (application programming is something > he claimed to have no interest in). For the record, I don't see the > point of Qi whatsoever, but that's another (off-topic) story. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
