> > I'm not so sure. Certainly things like the poignant guide made getting > started with Ruby easier, but I'd argue that the success of Ruby has a > lot more to do with how simple the core language it is and how easy it > makes it to get simple things done.
I'd argue it's both. Yes the language is elegant but you can't know until you try it and if it's a pain in the ass to try, you'll try something else. If you want to get started on Ruby and you ask people pointers, they'll tell you to read the Poignant Guide and from there, it's a smooth ride. > Conversely, despite increasingly > beginner-friendly docs and one-shot installers I don't get the > impression there's a bit upsurge of interest in Haskell outside of > circles of elites or language afficionados. > It's doing very well for a language that attempts not to be popular. > Again though, I'm all for making the beginner's experience no harder > than it absolutely has to be. No point having people turned away by > things extrinsic to the language. > > Getting started in clojure seems to suffer from a lot of incidental complexity. Quite ironic. > I often find myself frustrated browsing through the docs that there > aren't concrete examples for most of the functions in the API. I > always have to google their usage or find an example in the clojure > code. I'd be happy to help flesh out the docs with some usage examples > if this kind of help is wanted. Hell yes! What about a clojure cookbook? We could link all the functions in the API to examples where they are used. -- 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
