On Nov 10, 5:55 pm, "Robert Lally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course this is all predicated upon the creation of IDE tooling that is > still very far away, so it is in many ways an argument based on a future > which may never happen. I can see the value in optimising for now rather > than the future, but I fear being trapped in a local optima.
Even with an IDE, I think I'd prefer functions with terse names, over ones that are verbose. IDEs can make typing long symbols more bearable, but they can't reduce the amount of screen real estate long symbols take up. The greater the size of your source code, the less you can see on screen at any one time. I find this has a large impact on my general comprehension of the source code, even if I'm the only author. YMMV, of course, especially if you happen to have a better visual memory than I do :) - James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
