On Nov 27, 5:46 pm, Richard Newman <holyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't support the view that it's OK for programmers to not know what > they're doing, which in this case means knowing that 'foo reads as > (quote foo).
FWIW I *strongly* agree; getting reader macros straight in my head was a *big* help in macro writing; the special case would reinforce the "wrong" impression, IMO On Nov 27, 10:06 pm, "Alex Osborne" <a...@meshy.org> wrote: > Clojure is a very opinionated language and one of those opinions is that > Rich tries very hard to avoid incidental complexity. At times this > means things may at first appear more complex on the surface than in > other languages, but this is because Clojure isn't trying to hide what's > going on under the hood from you. It's one of the things I really enjoy > about it: there's no "magic". Clojure simplicity is real simplicity, > not apparent simplicity created by hiding the complexity under the bed. > Yes! One of the greatest aspects of Clojure is the clean consistency of the base language. One of the things that put me off really using Scala in anger was that the language itself seemed to have a lot of corner cases etc. (1) Scala was easier to pick up coming from Java, but Clojure easier to really get to grips with. -Dave 1. This is entirely subjective of course; if you consider Scala well- nigh spherical in its lack of corners, roll on. -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
