On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are important differences. As you say, there's no C-Clojure. Nor > is there (anymore) a .Net-Clojure.
There may one day be a Clojure-for-JavaScript (ClojureScript?), which of course will suffer from just such problems. Is that a good enough reason to resist the creation of ClojureScript? > Which leaves the coolness factor. > > I dislike writing Java/C# as much as anyone, and Clojure is my ticket > to writing much less of it, while leveraging the efforts of > multitudes. As I've said in my talks, most Clojure users go from "eww, > Java libs" to "ooh, Java libs" Following a Java lib's documented example, but getting it done in half as many lines of Clojure is cool. Lisp is cool. Having a language that's like lisp and has access to all of Java, but has more libs than lisp and that's more dynamic than java is *way* cool. --Chouser --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
