On Jul 30, 6:02 pm, daly wrote:
> While it is fine to say "get involved in head-punching" I think
> it is important to realize that it is Rich's head being punched.
Seems like I was unclear in my statement. I'll try to do it again.
At any point of a lifetime of a computer language there are peo
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Luc Prefontaine
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 peo
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:02:13 -0400
+1
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
Try to see the situation from the lead developer perspective
(e.g. Rich's perspective). I have been through the "head-punching",
as you call it and I don't want to put words in Rich's mouth but
I do see things differently.
To lead a project you need to make design choices.
To make those design c
The moment I saw the previous controversial topic - about "yes
language" push - I realized that Clojure has become mature. When the
people who do not agree with some choices appear not just outside but
in the community itself - it means that the language matters to them
despite the parts they don't
Lars,
Yes, they are different things. :) Ext Core is probably close in scope
to jQuery by itself. But you can really build Ext JS modularly and use
only what you want. Also, jQuery + plugins ends being just as full-
featured as the complete Ext JS (though the quality of jQuery plugins
tends to be
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tal Liron wrote:
> jQuery is not so much an elephant as it is a mammoth. It was one of
> the first clientside-JS frameworks to reach a broad audience, but it
> also one of the worst. It incorporates so many terrible JS practices,
> performs miserably, and really c
.. but isn't jQuery and ExtJS totally different things?
--
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 p
James, your tone was unfortunate, but I do want do defend your
position *a little*.
Projects like ClojureScript (and CoffeeScript) -- and GWT and Vaadin
for that matter -- come from a certain anti-JavaScript attitude.
Though I sympathize, I would like to encourage all the JavaScript
haters to give
Im not a javascript guru but from my experience JQuery isn't suitable
for large web application, starting with the JQueryUi immaturity and
the plethora of plugins that sometime work and sometime don't.
Rich and the rest of the core team, don't be discouraged by such
comments, if it wasn't for your
>
> I like CoffeeScript. But CoffeeScript is largely syntactic sugar. Hardly
> anything in the way of new semantics. And it encourages traditional stateful
> OOP and classical inheritance.
>
> Underscore.js does what it can, but it's goals are largely trumped by
> CoffeeScript.
>
> David
>
> Coffee
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Daniel Gagnon wrote:
> Javascript is simply painful to use functionally. The verbosity of
>> anonymous functions, the lack of crucial HOFs like map/filter/reduce, the
>> lack of functional data structures, the lack of macros (not strictly a
>> "functional" feature
>
> Javascript is simply painful to use functionally. The verbosity of
> anonymous functions, the lack of crucial HOFs like map/filter/reduce, the
> lack of functional data structures, the lack of macros (not strictly a
> "functional" feature, but especially useful with functional code)... You can
On 27 July 2011 01:43, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> My unhappiness with it is more akin to my unhappiness with ANY language that
> tries to target multiple VM platforms, and that's mostly due to the
> -potential- to break the community.
It may be helpful to approach the issue with the premise that
Clo
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
pmbauer wrote:
> These "unhappy" threads need to die a horrible death.
Well, criticism can also be constructive. It does at least show some of
the problems and/or desires that the community has. Fortunately, noone
is forced to read them :)
regards,
Marek
And I should have posted about the spec separately, right?
;; or all I have to do is to forbid myself to post anything...
--
Name: OGINO Masanori (荻野 雅紀)
E-mail: masanori.og...@gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to th
No need to wait in desperation for this, just add a filter rule in your email
client
to send these to trash directly. I have a couple of these and it saves me a
significant
# of frustrating hours :)
Luc P.
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
pmbauer wrote:
> These "unhappy" threads need
These "unhappy" threads need to die a horrible death.
--
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 pos
Oops, I wrote a footnote not to forget giving a supplement but I forgot it.
The number two was the number of Rich's Clojure implementations AFAIK.
--
Name: OGINO Masanori (荻野 雅紀)
E-mail: masanori.og...@gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clo
I have no opinion to add to mainline of this thread, but I could
answer one question.
Before the NYC meetup, there are two [1] "Clojure": Clojure on JVM and
Clojure on CLI/CLR.
Is Clojure on JVM "the true Clojure" and that on CLI/CLR is an poor imitation?
(in Ruby: Is MRI the true Ruby and JRuby,
I'm "unhappy" with ClojureScript but not in anyway like it seems you are.
My unhappiness with it is more akin to my unhappiness with ANY language that
tries to target multiple VM platforms, and that's mostly due to the -potential-
to break the community.
One of the main reasons Clojure "made it
The irony of +1 doesn't escape me, but +1
Sent from my iPad
On 26 Jul 2011, at 20:15, Base wrote:
> +1
>
> On Jul 26, 12:31 pm, Devin Walters 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 ma
+1
On Jul 26, 12:31 pm, Devin Walters 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 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2
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 wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 26, 3:08 pm, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
>
> Hi Timothy, and thanks for
On Jul 26, 3:08 pm, Timothy Baldridge 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
> 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 i
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> I wish I had a plug I could pull to stop this thread right n
LOL
--
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
On Jul 26, 2:01 pm, semperos wrote:
> Based on the majority of posts in this thread, I think you can see you're in
> the minority, both with regards to your opinions of ClojureScript and with
> regards to how this community should behave. Here's one more person who
> doesn't appreciate the attit
2011/7/26 Laurent PETIT
> I wish I had a plug I could pull to stop this thread right n
+1
>
> 2011/7/26 semperos
>
>> Based on the majority of posts in this thread, I think you can see you're
>> in the minority, both with regards to your opinions of ClojureScript and
>> with regards to how th
I wish I had a plug I could pull to stop this thread right n
2011/7/26 semperos
> Based on the majority of posts in this thread, I think you can see you're
> in the minority, both with regards to your opinions of ClojureScript and
> with regards to how this community should behave. Here's one mo
Based on the majority of posts in this thread, I think you can see you're in
the minority, both with regards to your opinions of ClojureScript and with
regards to how this community should behave. Here's one more person who
doesn't appreciate the attitude your posts embody. Rich, and everyone el
On Jul 26, 1:53 am, Christian Marks <9fv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:11 pm, James Keats 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 clojurescr
Clojure was my first Lisp, I learned it just after Rich's first vids came
out, but I hung up my hat as I prefer 1 language on all tiers(ajax on
client) for web apps. So, Clojurescript now presents me with the ability to
do that, and really piques my interest again in Clojure. I think this is a
On Jul 25, 6:11 pm, James Keats 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
James,
If I've misread and/or mischaracterized your intentions, I do apologize for
that. I was, and still am, unsure as to your desired outcome from this
post.
If the intent was for the core team to rewrite ClojureScript to target
jQuery instead of GClosure, we both know that was not going to ha
Perhaps I should've just looked for a blog about knitting or cupcakes
and posted what I did here about clojure/clojurescript in it. That way
you fine folks won't get to read it, eventhough no one here is obliged
in any way to read my posts or any in this thread. Yeah, definitely,
that way I might'
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:59 -0700, nchurch wrote:
> +1 to writing an etiquette document.
In place of an etiquette document I suggest the book
called "Producing Open Source Software".
In this generally useful book there is some advice,
mostly directed at project leads but this section is relevant
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:23 PM, nchurch wrote:
>> nchurch, I arrest you, try you, and find you guilty of the heinous
>> charge of top-posting, thou knave, thou scum, thou waster of
>> bandwidth!
>
> I confess that I have erred and strayed from thy ways like a lost
> sheep
For penance you mus
> nchurch, I arrest you, try you, and find you guilty of the heinous
> charge of top-posting, thou knave, thou scum, thou waster of
> bandwidth!
I confess that I have erred and strayed from thy ways like a lost
sheep
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group
Fair point, but Rhino doesn't always have the correct semantics.
For example, one common JS idiom for default params:
eval("undefined || 2 + 2") => returns true instead of 4
But mostly, Rhino is just a JS engine with no DOM, so is less than ideal for
browser UI development.
> > I do so hope h
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, nchurch wrote:
> +1 to writing an etiquette document. I have to confess I wrote a long
> post a few weeks ago without realizing these sorts of posts belonged
> on blogs
Not everyone *has* a blog, you know.
> Ken was helpful to me then when he pointed out that m
> Rich, the "pseudo class model" with the new keyword is a syntactic
> obfuscation, semantically javascript is prototypical inheritance. It's
> class free. In addition to the pseudo class inheritance advocated by
> google closure and the prototypical inherent in javascript, others
> like Doug Crock
+1 to writing an etiquette document. I have to confess I wrote a long
post a few weeks ago without realizing these sorts of posts belonged
on blogs (it was, oddly enough, another James Keats thread, on the
subject of Steve Yegge. I figured if \Yegge writes long blogs).
I didn't intend to ruff
> So, you could use ClojureScript and jQuery to write a snappy little
> demo and prove to everyone the value of that approach. I'm sure I'm
> not the only one that would be interested in seeing such a demo.
>
I think Rich's point in his talk is good to re-iterate here. Is jQuery
cool? Yes! I would
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM, James Keats wrote:
>
> Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaScript. I find it
> disappointing that rather than porting from a functional language like
> Clojure straight to another functional language like Javascript, the
> google closure with its ug
James,
The reason you are experiencing resistance is because you are
proposing changes to things that will never change. Rich came up with
the Rationale before designing ClojureScript and long before writing
any code. All of the design work was informed by this. You are arguing
that there should b
+1 - I think an etiquette document needs to be written.
On 25 July 2011 15:10, Steve wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:54 pm, James Keats wrote:
> >
> > Best regards; love you, man, and sorry again for any misunderstanding
> > or unintended miscommunication.
> >
>
> My humble suggestion is when you find yo
On Jul 25, 7:54 pm, James Keats wrote:
>
> Best regards; love you, man, and sorry again for any misunderstanding
> or unintended miscommunication.
>
My humble suggestion is when you find yourself in your 5th or 6th
paragraph of an opinion piece there's a reasonable chance what you're
writing belo
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Mark Rathwell wrote:
> Colin,
> I don't think anyone responding was doing so with the mindset of "my way or
> the highway" and "we must defend the great leader's achievements". Speaking
> for myself, I responded to an argument that did not make sense, that
> argum
I'd say Google Closure/Libray is "more idiomatic" JavaScript than jQuery;
jQuery is more "sugary" and has a different feel to it.
I like jQuery, but I completely see why that is not a the most optimal base
to build on when something like Google Closure exists. Rich mentioned,
however, that peop
Colin,
I don't think anyone responding was doing so with the mindset of "my way or
the highway" and "we must defend the great leader's achievements". Speaking
for myself, I responded to an argument that did not make sense, that
argument being basically: "Crockford says javascript can be written a
> Oracle announced/talked about Nashorn at the recent JVM Languages summit,
> this is an Invoke Dynamic based Javascript runtime which is (aiming) for
> inclusion in JDK8.
>
> I do so hope however that someone manages to pull that out for a "lets run
> this NOW on Java 7" as that would be a grea
> > In the middle of what? I look at ClojureScript code and it looks like
> > Clojure to me. Google Closure is under, and it is no more annoying
> > there than Java is under Clojure - an implementation detail, and a
> > rich source of production-quality code.
> I respectfully dispute that; for what
Right, Rich, please allow me to reply to the points you mentioned; I
declined from doing so last night as I sensed some unintentionally
irritated feelings, which I hope have eased a bit by now. I believe
all my posts in this discussion are purely technical concerns and I
believe them to be valid
Clojure newcomer here, but here's the thought that's frontmost in my
mind about ClojureScript...
I'm used to Clojure as a language that's solidly spot-welded to the
JVM and the Java libraries. Just as "[1 2 3]" is legal portable
Clojure code, so is "(.start (Thread. #(...)))" despite it being a
bl
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Colin Yates wrote:
> Absolutely nothing to add to the argument as such except to say that I am
> quite surprised at the level of resistance to James' thread. I can see the
> argument if this was the 'dev' mailing list.
> I have been reading this mailing list for a
Absolutely nothing to add to the argument as such except to say that I am
quite surprised at the level of resistance to James' thread. I can see the
argument if this was the 'dev' mailing list.
I have been reading this mailing list for a long while now (even if I
haven't contributed much to it) b
Oracle announced/talked about Nashorn at the recent JVM Languages summit, this
is an Invoke Dynamic based Javascript runtime which is (aiming) for inclusion
in JDK8.
I do so hope however that someone manages to pull that out for a "lets run this
NOW on Java 7" as that would be a great improveme
OK, good. Now, say you're sorry if you offended him. -"I'm sorry if I
offended you." And you, say you're sorry if you over-reacted. "I'm
sorry if I over-reacted." Very good. Now, shake hands. Good. I love
you both. You should love each other too. You'll need each other
later.
--
Father of three bo
On Jul 24, 10:23 pm, Base wrote:
> "Why should we care what kind of Javascript ClojureScript generates,
> as long as it's correct and performant? The whole point of the project
> is to allow us to write Clojure rather than Javascript!"
>
> James, you do get this point, right? Just like GWT allo
Well I'm very very sorry if the intent of my post was misunderstood or
I articulated it poorly, but I would like to emphasize, Rich, that I'm
a big fan of yours and in no way intended to exhaust you, I was merely
and honestly voicing my concerns, just like in a previous thread I
have quoted you ti
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>ClojureScript is an action movie, and we're interested in
> helping people kick butt.
Could you please tweet that, if only so I can retweet it? :)
--
Charlie Griefer
http://charlie.griefer.com/
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But
On Jul 24, 11:19 am, James Keats wrote:
> Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed.
>
I'll make sure you get a refund then.
Seriously, this is like being disappointed an action movie was an
action movie instead of a comedy. Your expectations are a complete
mismatch for the intentions of Clojure
"Why should we care what kind of Javascript ClojureScript generates,
as long as it's correct and performant? The whole point of the project
is to allow us to write Clojure rather than Javascript!"
James, you do get this point, right? Just like GWT allows you to
program in Java to write JavaScript
>I think it's a bit absurd, folks, to criticize Java's OOP as
>incidental complexity, too much ceremony, and even suggest in the Joy
>of Clojure that a Steve Yegge's Universal Design Pattern and prototype
>pattern a la Javascript could be married to clojure's in the chapter
>that discuss namespaces
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM, James Keats wrote:
> If so where does this leave clojure itself and its advocacy of
> functional programming, then; see last paragraph of my reply to Mark.
Given that JS is merely the "assembler" that ClojureScript targets -
in exactly the same way that Java byte
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, James Keats wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:24 pm, Michael Gardner wrote:
>> The functional parts of Javascript are far different from those of Clojure
>> (and not in a good way).
>
> How so? javasript, while not as functional as clojure, is far more
> functional than java (
On Jul 24, 7:24 pm, Michael Gardner wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:11 PM, James Keats wrote:
>
> >> Restricting yourself to a functional subset of JavaScript can't fix
> >> JavaScript. The functional subset stinks, Javascript notaries be damned.
>
> > If so where does this leave clojure itself a
On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:11 PM, James Keats wrote:
>> Restricting yourself to a functional subset of JavaScript can't fix
>> JavaScript. The functional subset stinks, Javascript notaries be damned.
>
> If so where does this leave clojure itself and its advocacy of
> functional programming, then; see
On Jul 24, 7:05 pm, David Nolen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats wrote:
>
> > The Javascript notaries have advocated using a small functional subset
> > of javascript, rather than the full gamut of javscript's quirks, and I
> > was saddened while watching the Rich Hickey tal
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats wrote:
> The Javascript notaries have advocated using a small functional subset
> of javascript, rather than the full gamut of javscript's quirks, and I
> was saddened while watching the Rich Hickey talk when he said that
> clojurescript would abstract
On Jul 24, 6:03 pm, David Nolen wrote:
> As a professional JavaScripter for the past 6 years who has built his own
> frameworks and written considerable amounts of Prototype, MooTools, and
> jQuery.
>
> I don't think jQuery is special or particularly interesting and most of the
> libraries aroun
Given that google closure library has a fairly decent size UI elements, and the
pitch about how clojurescript makes google closure usable for mortals. I think
that's probably where it will start.
On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Frank Gerhardt
wrote:
...
> expect that story to be completely done.
On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Mark Rathwell wrote:
> Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything
> should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is bad
> because it has some similarities to Java development (mainly verbosity and
> documentation). I'm honest
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:03 PM, David Nolen wrote:
>
> I think the Clojure community can do much, much better. In fact a
> clientside framework could be the first Clojure killer app ...
>
Yes, absolutely.
Integration with other libraries is essential, and possible as I understand
it. For client
As a professional JavaScripter for the past 6 years who has built his own
frameworks and written considerable amounts of Prototype, MooTools, and
jQuery.
I don't think jQuery is special or particularly interesting and most of the
libraries around it are terrible IMO. It certainly doesn't help in b
Yes, true, I always forget about YUI, and it never gets its fair
recognition.
- Mark
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> Sorry for the digression, but what about YUI 3?
>
> Regards,
> BG
>
> ---
> Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity.
> On Jul 24, 2011 9:32 PM, "Mark
Sorry for the digression, but what about YUI 3?
Regards,
BG
---
Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity.
On Jul 24, 2011 9:32 PM, "Mark Rathwell" wrote:
> Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything
> should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is
Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything
should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is bad
because it has some similarities to Java development (mainly verbosity and
documentation). I'm honestly not sure if you are just trying to be
controversi
First:
* I respect your opinions. I am glad that you have taken the time to
start exploring ClojureScript
Second:
* Dude, stop trolling. This is the second time you have started a thread
with a baiting subject line and no clear end goal. Your opinions are
yours, and I have no problems with
Hi James,
The Clojure/dev folks who built ClojureScript disagree with all of the key
points of your analysis:
> Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaScript.
If you target idiomatic JavaScript you will find yourself living in the world
of JavaScript semantics. It is evident that m
Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed.
First of all, congrats and good job to all involved in putting it out.
On the plus side, it's a good way to use the Google Closure javascript
platform.
On the minus, imho, that's what's wrong with it.
Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaSc
82 matches
Mail list logo
