> > I come from the Ruby world, and Ruby isn't even a 2.0, so my perspective is > definitely colored. >
It seems to me like (most) of the things you are talking about are not core language specific things. In particular for package management Ruby uses Rubygems which is a separate project, and just recently Bundler for dependency management. To me these things have no impact on the language and shouldn't keep the language from moving forward in a version numbering sense. I do agree that they should mature though. > Three problems with the REPL: > > 1. The standard way Clojure tells me to get a REPL is using the java > command. This makes Clojure not feel like a first-class language. > Agreed, there is a ticket for this in JIRA. > > 2. Once I do get a REPL, either through the java or lein or cljr commands, > it has no indentation or Jline support. It feels messy. > >From what I have seen most people aren't using the bare REPL or lein repl, but the experience could be better. > > 3. I use Vim, so Emacs/Slime isn't really something I want to do. (And I > don't want to have to use a specific editor in order to use the language of > my choice.) > Sorry if you are already aware of this, but there is a vim plugin for slime that I have heard good things about. > > >> > - better discovery for existing, well-tested libraries. >> > Well tested is completely a matter of opinion and is another one of those things that doesn't seem like a reason to hold back a "2.0". > As I say, I really enjoy coding in Clojure, but the process surrounding > coding is not always very polished. I see too much Java and not quite enough > integration to think of it as a "2.0" yet, though I do think we can get > there. > I can completely understand what you mean after coming from the Ruby world where there has been a ton of effort spent on making the development experience better. I think we can take a lot away from what Ruby has done. Two of the Clojure/core team members (Stuart Halloway and me) also came from Ruby and spent quite a bit of time helping make it better while we were there. I do want to make sure that the things we think about when calling a release 2.0 factor more into what has changed since the last release. This would be both how much has changed, and how many breaking changes have occurred. I don't want to dismiss what you have brought up though because I think they are all really important for the adoption of the language going forward. Cheers. Aaron -- Clojure/core http://clojure.com -- 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
