> I have a strong dislike for the concept of TIMTOWTDI (There is more > than one way to do it .
This should be a guiding design goal for any core lisp devel. Get the core right and TIMTOWTDI is a `side effect' of good design rather than the inverse. s_P On Dec 19, 7:36 am, "Mark Volkmann" <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
