On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Zach Tellman <ztell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lines of code are a terrible metric for language complexity. If I > write a function and abstract away half the code, have I made Clojure > twice as simple? Ah, I'm sorry - I'm not looking at *language* complexity. I'm looking at the complexity of the java/clojure *environment*. It seems to take a lot non-clojure boilerplate to do *anything* in java-land than seems reasonable to me. But I don't know javaland very well, which is why I asked for other people's opinions. > If you want to really evaluate Clojure, write a non-trivial > application and see whether the complexity is still manageable. Code > golf doesn't tell you anything. Been there, done that. More than once. Well, maybe, depending on your definition of "trivial". http://blog.mired.org/ Clojure great. No questions about that. WAR files, CLASSPATHs, having to wrap *every little command* in it's own script - that's what I'm looking at. <mike -- Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- 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
