On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Luc Prefontaine <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote: > I would add that I want to see Rich maintain is grip on the Clojure wheel for > a very long time. > > Consensual decisions are most of the time not the best. They are the result > of compromises not based on technical arguments but on people's feelings or > political issues.
And the result of them tends most often to be something like Java at best, and often closer to C++. > Stop hammering on him and if you are not happy with Clojure, find another > language > that matches your aspirations. They are plenty out there. There is something of an issue here, though: where, exactly, should the line be drawn between "thou shalt not question this on the mailing list!" and "fair game for discussion", presuming as you do that it isn't "everything is fair game for discussion if it's not entirely unrelated to Clojure". You seem to feel that major, already-made design decisions that would require a fork and massive effort to do differently lie on the "shalt not question" side. What about more minor choices -- for example, which of the three kinds of primitive math overflow behaviors, throwing, auto-promoting, or wrap-around, should be the default? I assume not-yet-made choices and easily-tweaked, recentish (still in alpha or beta) things that won't break a lot of existing code fall under "fair game". Also, what should the policy be for responding if someone questions a "shalt not question" anyway? Currently, there's an unfortunate tendency to assume the worst motives and to employ namecalling, particularly the word "troll", against possibly-well-intentioned transgressors. I'd suggest that such threads should get a single response, saying "that decision's already been made; if you want to make your own fork that does it differently go ahead, and if you want to discuss it there's the clojure-misc google group, but please don't clutter *this* group with it", and otherwise the post should be ignored. Followups by the OP should be ignored. Oh, and there should probably be a pointer to a FAQ of some sort in that initial response answering any likely "but why?" type questions the OP might have, including "what other topics will bring this kind of response?". -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- 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
