e, I just picked a new word 'Rogramming'?
Regards, Emeka On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Emeka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> e, >> >> What is inspiring in it? >> > > Hmmmm .... from time to time, people use percent literacy as a measure of > public intellectual health, right? In that case, it's sort of obvious that > literacy is a goal. Well, I'm wondering if we need to add a 4th > fundamental to the 3 R's (Reading, Riting and 'Rithmetic) ... namely > 'Rogramming. That opens up a lot of conversation. To summarize a paragraph > that I just erase (was getting a little silly), to me Stuart's point is the > same as to say that it is not the intent of poems (or even some good movies) > to be understood completely, all at once, and right away. There are plenty > of other worthwhile things in that category, too ... like perhaps clojure. > > > >> >> Regards, >> Emeka >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, e <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Stuart Halloway < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As the author of the book, you can bet I have an opinion on the >>>> quality of the docs. :-) >>>> >>>> (1) I think the documentation for Clojure (website, Mark Volkmann's >>>> long article [1], blog posts, the book [2]) is *insanely* good, given >>>> how young the language is. But... >>>> >>>> (2) If you are coming from a mainstream business software environment, >>>> there are a ton of new ideas in Clojure. There's more to learn, so of >>>> course it is going be harder, and take longer. You won't get there >>>> just by reading one book, even if you work through all the code >>>> examples. I *love* that Rich's recommended reading list [3] has not 2, >>>> or 4, but 36 books!! Clojure stands in opposition to the "in 21 days >>>> for dummies" [4] school of thought. >>>> >>>> (3) Scala's just as hard to learn, because it too is full of ideas >>>> that are new to many developers. I would love to see the 36-book list >>>> for learning Scala, and I bet there would be significant overlap. >>>> >>>> (4) I think the Clojure docstrings are ok, but could be improved by >>>> usage examples. Rich, are you interested in patches that simply add >>>> examples to docstrings? >>>> >>>> In short: if you are the median developer, both Clojure and Scala are >>>> huge improvements over the language you are using right now. But you >>>> won't be effective in either one of them tomorrow: the learning curve >>>> is not 1, but 5-10 books. >>>> >>>> So let's raise the bar. In the world I want to live in, programmers >>>> above the novice level would understand the ideas in both Clojure and >>>> Scala. Learn both. :-) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Stu >>>> >>>> [1] http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html >>>> [2] http://www.pragprog.com/titles/shcloj/programming-clojure >>>> [3] http://tinyurl.com/clojure-bookshelf >>>> [4] http://norvig.com/21-days.html >>>> >>> >>> awesome post. Inspiring. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > I think there are a lot of people who need to choose between Clojure >>>> > and Scala to study as a "new" language. I must say that both are bad: >>>> > * Clojure doc is hard to understand. >>>> > * Scala grammar is complicated. >>>> > >>>> > I prefer Clojure. I think Clojure feature at this time is OK, thus the >>>> > decisive point to draw people to Clojure is doc. I wonder if the doc >>>> > at this time is obvious for LISP people, but comming from C/C++, Java, >>>> > Ruby, and Erlang (Erlang doc is bad, but it is paradise compared to >>>> > that of Clojure :D) and even after reading the Clojure book, I must >>>> > say that I can't understand 99% of the doc of both clojure and >>>> > clojure- >>>> > contrib. >>>> > >>>> > For example, what does the following mean? >>>> > ------------------------- >>>> > (-> x form) >>>> > (-> x form & more) >>>> > Macro >>>> > Threads the expr through the forms. Inserts x as the second item in >>>> > the first form, making a list of it if it is not a list already. If >>>> > there are more forms, inserts the first form as the second item in >>>> > second form, etc. >>>> > ------------------------- >>>> > >>>> > My wish: There are easy-to-understand examples in API doc. >>>> > >>>> > Rails is easy to use largely because there are examples in doc of >>>> > every API function. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Aug 26, 12:37 pm, Alan Busby <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:43 AM, npowell <[email protected]> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> I mean, I didn't think the article was terribly in depth, but a >>>> >>> real, >>>> >>> evenhanded comparison would be enlightening. >>>> >> >>>> >> Reducing it further, I'd be interested just to hear more about the >>>> >> contrast >>>> >> of static typing versus macros. Which is more beneficial for >>>> >> different >>>> >> situations and why? >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
