As a lurker, considering Clojure for a project, the thing that is giving me pause isn't 1.0 per se, but the combination of a good library mechanism and documentation. I have Stuart's book, and I agree in the strongest possible terms that it should be a book explicitly about a stable Clojure 1.0. The choice for me is between Scala and Clojure, and the languages themselves are not a discriminator - it's the environments around the languages that determine the outcome.
It's not clear how to use the stuff in clojure-contrib, which certainly seems like the 'standard library' of useful tools that makes clojure into something other than a lispy language using Java libraries. Please don't under-estimate the extent to which good documentation, an obvious and clean code base (which clojure-contrib isn't) and a documented story for packaging and managing extensions/contributions, gives the impression of quality, at least with respect to the kind of 'quality' that comforts and convinces arms-length users. The website is quite good in some of those respects for clojure core. Also +1 for moving to git and github - in my experience it motivates contributions/contributors because it is such a low-barrier platform for collaborative/experimentation. Antony Blakey ------------- CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd Ph: 0438 840 787 The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. -- Martin Luther King --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
