On Jun 29, 1:22 pm, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > Any talk about how Clojure might be "too much" for some, for whatever > reason, is out of bounds IMO. Clojure, as a language, is *simpler* > than just about all of the popular alternatives out there, and the > language is eminently approachable and practical for programmers from > varying domains and with varying levels of experience.
It just isn't. Recursion, s-expr syntax, non-mutability, macros and the difference between compilation and evaluation etc etc are just *harder* for most people to understand than simple infix imperative code. Even MIT has thrown in the towel in this battle and switched to Python for the SICP courses. I remember having discussions with Peter Siebel about this while he was working on his Lisp book. Like a lot of Lisp lovers, he seemed to think that making Lisp popular was just a matter of making people see how eminently logical and simple and practical it is. It's not that easy. Look at the results of your own usage poll. The top languages people would use if Clojure were unavailable to them are: 1. scala 2. common lisp 3. haskell 4. scheme These people just *aren't* the median. To insist otherwise is to live in denial. -- 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
