+1 On Jul 26, 12:31 pm, Devin Walters <dev...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's stop feeding this thread and turn our attention toward healthy and > productive discussion. This is my first and final post on this matter. > > Sent via Mobile > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:56 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 3:08 pm, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Timothy, and thanks for your much-better-than-others' reply. > > >>> Oh I will be washing my hands and be gone for sure, as coding and > >>> making things better is precisely what I offered in my OP, which was > >>> taken as a "threat" and I was told to start a "separate mailing list" > >>> for it; perhaps this community welcomes folks who don't know any > >>> better than to be invariably effusive for everything in it, but for > >>> those who do it it quite evidently has not been. > > >> But I think you need to understand what exactly it is that you are > >> asking of Rich and the other ClojureScript devs whith your original > >> comment. Rich's comment is not abnormal for the type of request you > >> are making. I have seen his type of reply before. > > > And what is it exactly I was "asking of" them?! I offered to > > singlehandedly "fork" and redo it. > > >> For a second let's try to cool down and see the logic process used in > >> Clojure to start with. Standard Clojure was developed on the JVM...for > >> one reason...it provides a platform to stand on while developing a new > >> language. We already have a type system, GC, etc. Could Rich have > >> developed all this from scratch? Sure, but we'd probably still be at > >> Clojure 0.1, and no one would be using the language in production. > >> Believe me, I've actually attempted writing Clojure in a lower level > >> language (both PyPy and C++), and it's not pretty, the level of tools > >> that exist for the JVM and the level of the JVMs themselves shaved > >> years of development time off the creation of Clojure. > > > No, sorry, this doesn't make sense. No reasonable person would've > > expected Rich to "develop from scratch" a "type system, GC, etc." for > > javascript, and this has nothing to do with Google's Closure tools. > > >> What does this have to do with ClojureScript? Well I think it shows > >> the thought process that Rich uses when developing a new language. He > >> looks at his tools and finds platforms that make is life easier. > > >> So, let's for the sake of argument, enumerate the features of both > >> sides of this question: > > >> jQuery: > >> Understood by the JS community > >> Helps manipulate the DOM > >> Provides some UI routines > >> Optimizes code size via minifiers > > >> Closure: > >> Enforces a strict OOP model > >> Provides Graphics routines (canvas) > >> Provides DOM manipulation routines > >> Provides many UI routines > >> Provides encryption, networking, spellchecking, math libraries etc. > >> Has a full optimizing compiler > > >> The cons of Closure is of course that it's not well understood by the > >> JS community. But this really isn't a language for the JS community, > >> so is that really a problem? > > >> I think Rich looked at both these options (and many more), and simply > >> picked the right tool for the job at hand. No! I would never use > >> Closure for a website I was writing in JS. It would be a major pain in > >> the neck. But I plan on using Clojure and ClojureScript for my future > >> web needs. > > > Right, so you wouldn't use it in JS but you'd use it with an > > additional layer of indirection (translated from another language) > > that'd make working with it and reasoning about what's actually > > happening and debugging even more of a pain. Sorry, this doesn't make > > sense either. > > > I have already addressed other points, such as favoring it for > > "enforcing a strict OOP model" as being an serious affront to the > > credibility of clojure's rationale and advocacy and that its > > optimizing compiler made sense back when most of the browsers out > > there were IE6 but is no longer a reasonable priority. > > > Regards, and thanks again for your better-than-others' reply, I won't > > be coding anything though after all this and I'll still be gone. For > > sanity's sake, you guys ought to realize - for your own sake - that as > > things stand you surely won't be "kicking butt" with clojurescript. > > >> Just like you can write Clojure code and not care what Java is doing > >> under the hood. Now you can write Clojure for the browser and not care > >> about what JS is doing. > > >> ______________ > > >> So after taking that all into consideration, I'm confident, that if > >> you took the time to develop a POC that showed that a jQuery based > >> ClojureScript would be faster, smaller, and better than one developed > >> with Clojure, Rich would probably switch in a heartbeat. But until you > >> have hard evidence, it's really hard to convince anyone. > > >> Timothy > > > -- > > 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
-- 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
