> Since I don't hear this argument too often, I image Clojure is > striking an acceptable balance. What does everyone else think?
Totally agree. See for example the extreme brevity of names in arc (Paul Graham's hundred year language). Reading code in arc is very hard. Longer names, like java and C++ promote, are terrible: as Rick says, lines spill, code becomes overall longer and harder to keep in the head. The one aspect that Clojure could (I don't know how) improve, is in reducing the breadth of syntax. Currently, in the clojure namespace there are 549 words (functions, macros, etc): >>> (count (ns-map (find-ns 'clojure))) 549 That is a lot to memorize. It would help me, at least, if there were sub-blocks (like in the webpage: java interop, macros, sequences, vectors, maps, collections, agents, etc) and each had a list of keywords that could be queried easier. Perhaps one way to do that would be to have a higher-order doc function, that replied with keywords belonging to it. For example, a mock-up call for "Maps": >>> (doc Maps) ---- Maps are this and that, and can be manipulated with: (hash-map keyvals*) (sorted-map keyvals*) (sorted-map-by comparator keyvals*) (assoc map key val) (dissoc map key) (get map key) (contains? map key) ... Just a suggestion. Albert -- Albert Cardona http://albert.rierol.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
