On Jul 30, 6:02 pm, daly d...@axiom-developer.org 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
fix
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
CoffeeScript and
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
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
.. 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
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tal Liron tal.li...@gmail.com 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
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
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
pmbauer paul.michael.ba...@gmail.com 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
On 27 July 2011 01:43, Mark Derricutt m...@talios.com 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
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 26, 1:53 am, Christian Marks 9fv...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
I wish I had a plug I could pull to stop this thread right n
2011/7/26 semperos daniel.l.grego...@gmail.com
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
2011/7/26 Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
I wish I had a plug I could pull to stop this thread right n
+1
2011/7/26 semperos daniel.l.grego...@gmail.com
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
On Jul 26, 2:01 pm, semperos daniel.l.grego...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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,
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
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 post.
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 paul.michael.ba...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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)
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Colin Yates colin.ya...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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 they
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
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
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 people
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Mark Rathwell mark.rathw...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 25, 7:54 pm, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.com 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
+1 - I think an etiquette document needs to be written.
On 25 July 2011 15:10, Steve stephen.a.lind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:54 pm, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Best regards; love you, man, and sorry again for any misunderstanding
or unintended miscommunication.
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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.com 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
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
+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
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 Crockford
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, nchurch nchubr...@gmail.com 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
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
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
Groups
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:23 PM, nchurch nchubr...@gmail.com 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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 mark.rathw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything
should be more like Java? Now you're arguing
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 b.gh...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry for the digression, but what about YUI 3?
Regards,
BG
---
Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity.
On Jul 24, 2011 9:32
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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:03 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Mark Rathwell mark.rathw...@gmail.com 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
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 f...@gerhardtinformatics.com
wrote:
...
expect that
On Jul 24, 6:03 pm, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Jul 24, 7:05 pm, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.comwrote:
The Javascript notaries have advocated using a small functional subset
of javascript, rather than the full gamut of javscript's quirks, and I
was
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 last
On Jul 24, 7:24 pm, Michael Gardner gardne...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, James Keats wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:24 pm, Michael Gardner gardne...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.com 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
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,
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,
On Jul 24, 11:19 am, James Keats james.w.ke...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com 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
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
On Jul 24, 10:23 pm, Base basselh...@gmail.com 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
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 boys
81 matches
Mail list logo
