On Jun 29, 6:25 pm, Michael Richter <ttmrich...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you *trying* to evoke the "Smug Lisp Weenie" vibe, cageface, or is this > just a natural byproduct of being a burgeoning Smug Clojure Weenie?
How many times do I have to say I'm in favor of making things as easy as possible for beginners before I'm exempt from this charge? How many decades does Lisp have to spend on the sidelines before Lispers admit that maybe, just maybe, it's not for everybody? Tying the fortunes of Clojure to Java was a brilliant move and one that I've advocated for years but the trend I've seen lately to try to paper over the Java underpinnings of the language worries me, as does talk of making Clojure-in-Clojure. There's a small but viable market for people doing difficult things in a Java-flavored Lisp (Runa, Flightcaster, BackType etc), but this is where the future of Clojure lies - as a power tool for heavy lifting on the Java platform. -- 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
