Hi, On 20 Dez., 18:41, Martin Coxall <pseudo.m...@me.com> wrote: > On 20/12/2009 5:39 PM, Richard Newman wrote: > > >> It's better if we can support both. It's never one size fits all. > > > Who is "we"? > > > If you're talking about something *you* want, you can go build it > > I see Clojure is well on the way to building a community at least as > repellingly exclusionary as all the other Lisps nobody uses.
can't you understand the reactions? The Lisp-people have been through this discussion for what? 20 years, 30 years, 40 years? And it comes up in intervalls which feel like once a month (don't nail me down on the numbers). Go to comp.lang.lisp and do a search for it. Really. There is nothing new to this discussion in this thread compared to all the others. There are many other things to criticize in Common Lisp with good cause, and Clojure does a hell of a job cleaning many of those. Let's just be happy with that. This is my second and definetely my last post to this thread and hopefully to this topic in general. I only participated because I thought we need to go this once for Clojure, too. Kind regards, Stefan -- 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
