On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:46 PM, cageface <milese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the goals of making Clojure a little > easier to start with and keeping it a "professional" language are > necessarily totally at odds but efforts to build something like > Processing or even DrScheme on it seem misdirected. > > Isn't it? What's the solution to "Clojure supports too many different IDEs" other than "support fewer IDEs"? The same goes for the "Clojure supports too many different make systems". One of the reasons you don't learn to fly on a 747 is that the thing has 12 fuel gauges. I'm not kidding. There are 6 different fuel tanks around the plane, and each fuel tank has 2 different gauges (google "Gimli Glider" for why this is so). This allows the professional pilot can then use this to his advantage (pulling fuel from different tanks over a long flight to help keep the plane in trim). But to the newbie pilot who just wants to know if he's about to run out of fuel or not, having 12 different fuel gauges does not help. Having 12 different supported build systems, or IDEs/editors, is not unlike having 12 different fuel gauges. That said, I have no problem with there being a DrClojure environment kicking around, designed for the beginner programmer- so long as that is not the *only* supported environment. Which means if your complaint is that there are too many build systems or IDEs to choose from, too much choice, I have no sympathy for you. Brian -- 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
