On Jul 25, 6:11 pm, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > I ask, what is it that I did other than "seriously inquire about the > rationale"?! You started a thread with the non-serious title, "Alright, fess up, whose unhappy with clojurescript?" instead of the more serious "Comments on the clojurescript rationale." Having done that, you could have addressed the rationale.
> then there's a big wide merciless world out there that'll find it > absolutely ridiculous for Rich Hickey to rail against classes and > inheritance on and on and then favor a library and post a link titled > "inheritance" that argues for hoisting a pseudoclassical version of it > upon a language that tries to be functional as proof that it is > advantageous. Perhaps clojure itself should have classes and > inheritance and Rich should instead of apologizing for having once > taught it to people apologize for teaching them clojure. Oh dear, this is jumbled prose for someone who "always advocates" taking a "managerial attitude." So much for the managerial attitude. What happened to "love you, man"? One gathers that managers offer conditional apologies and then quickly and resentfully withdraw them. -- 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
