On Jun 29, 7:24 pm, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > More talking up the complexity of Clojure, to its detriment. Stop > it. Familiarity is not a metric that anyone is aiming at, least of > all the language principals -- capability in various axes is, and > that's what's attracting people from all sides.
A language advocate is a salesman. A good salesman knows his product and his audience. Many here seem to have some extremely naive ideas about this. Push Clojure as a Python/Ruby/blub replacement and you'll get a inbox full of this kind of thing: http://www.benrady.com/2010/06/a-bit-of-heresy-functional-languages-are-overrated.html This *is* mostly tangential to the OP though. I don't think anybody is arguing that there's anything wrong with making the initial user experience as pain-free and rewarding as possible. Questions about the scope of Clojure's audience will be answered in time. -- 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
