> If you don't need this, you don't have to use it. I feel very strongly that Clojure, and any programming language, should avoid using this rationale when adding support for new syntax. Just because a developer chooses not to use a particular feature doesn't mean they don't have to understand it. They will have to read the code that other developers write and those developers may use the feature.
I have a strong dislike for the concept of TIMTOWTDI (There is more than one way to do it ... pronounced "tim toadie") that Perl and Ruby espouse. I think it's fine to have more than one way to do something IF each way has some unique characteristic such as performance in different scenarios, but not if each way is just a different syntax for the same functionality. Part of the success of Clojure (measured in adoption) will depend on how much effort is required to learn it. Anything extra that makes Clojure code more challenging to read and determine what the code does works against the goal of getting more developers to consider using Clojure. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
