On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:42 AM, nchubrich <nchubr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Since Lisp is highly extensible, in the long run being > 'prescriptive' is a losing battle. It is better to eventually add > standard 'bad' features to the language than to tempt third parties to > do it in even worse and incompatible ways. > Maybe, but I don't think that the core should change much or at all. Besides, most of those features are probably already in java. > * Clojure is already enough of a new way of thinking, and it may be > simply too much at once for many people. If a gentle path gets more > people into the ecosystem, it's worth it----once they are in Clojure > they can be steered towards better, more functional ways of doing > things. In any case, experienced users are always free to ignore > extra features. > I don't agree, It's like postponing your homework. You have to learn sometime, and I don't think it's going to be easier later on. > * It's meant to be a pragmatic language. This means that a prime goal > should be to get people writing useful (web, GUI, shell) code in it > right away. Having choices is good, but being forced to make all > these choices your first day of writing Clojure, when you don't have a > "sixth sense" about the community and What Really Works, is needlessly > discouraging. > This is dangerous. One of the main points of clojure (in my opinion), is that it's written for the actual users, and not the potential users. > * Final (added) point: while it might have made sense to be > 'prescriptive' initially in order to establish the identity, core, and > soul of the language, this has been done sufficiently. Newcomers are > not going to be confused about what the main points of Clojure are > now. There is therefore less risk in making it broadly useful to > different paradigms. > Run for the hills! I don't quite know what to say about this point, but an earlier mail comes to mind. In that mail someone pointed out that it doesn't really matter how many features a language supports, it will still be specifically good at doing one thing. ___________ Otherwise, I agree with the documentation issue. clojure.org seldom gives me useful information. Jonathan -- 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
