> > On Jan 30, 3:16 pm, Stuart Sierra <the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think the goal is to provide object-like capabilities without > > needing actual objects. > > Why is that the goal? I mean, the JVM provides a well defined, high > performance object oriented system. Clojure can already generate > classes - the main issue I see looking at the API is that it doesn't > look convenient to make "property bag" classes. >
Except that compared to Clojure's multihierarchy multimethod system, Java's object system seems a bit, shall we say, weak. And why program in Java when you can program in Clojure? Why deal with Java UI interop if you don't need/want it? Just saying the OP has a valid point. Perhaps someone wants to build a web based UI framework along the lines of weblocks. Perhaps you want to define easily extendable widgets in this UI framework... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
