The irony of +1 doesn't escape me, but +1 Sent from my iPad
On 26 Jul 2011, at 20:15, Base <basselh...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 -- 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
