On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Baishampayan Ghose <b.gh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> It takes almost zero time to offer opinions without bothering to check. >> >> That looks like yet another unproductive, non-constructive personal >> criticism. > > Why do you think so?
Because of the implication that my opinions are uninformed ones not worth their time. (It's interesting, though, that they apparently consider those opinions worth their time to criticize, but not worth their time to actually consider carefully!) > These people are just requesting you to check things for yourself I CAN'T check things for myself -- I only have 1.2 here and I'm not about to break all of my OWN code by "up"grading it to an alpha version that has at least one KNOWN massive compatibility-breaking change as well as being likely to contain significant unfixed bugs. Really, I was wondering if anyone would manage to top the ridiculous suggestion that every post be preceded by two hours of thorough archive-diving and reading of older posts. Now you have, by making the truly *ludicrous* suggestion that one not post unless one is using the bleedingest-edge alpha version, complete with whatever headaches that will certainly induce (not least among them, updating everything every few days instead of every few months/years). > instead engaging in this meaningless argument. The > design decision of implementing "enhanced primitives" support in > Clojure We had fine primitives support in let and loop with the unchecked-foo operations; and it didn't affect the rest of one's code, which was generally not arithmetic-performance-critical. I still do not see what advantage this change brings. Can the fastest primitive operations in let and loop contexts be made any faster? Not that I've heard. Can primitives now be passed and returned in function calls? Not that I've heard, just "we're working on it". > You are unwilling to dig the archives I am unwilling to accede to a request if it's stated rudely enough. I DID read the summary link someone posted, but it did not relieve my concerns on this topic. This does not mean I did not read it thoroughly and understand it. It means that I did and I STILL DISAGREE WITH YOU. Perhaps this notion is literally inconceivable to you, but those're the facts, Jack. > read the implementation Don't have it. (1.3 alpha 4, that is.) > or even test an existing codebase for issues Don't have it. (1.3 alpha 4, that is.) > yet you are accusing people of criticizing you just because they feel you > should do a bit more > research about this. I'm asking them to explain themselves better, and their responses are not any kind of explanation. -- 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
