On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Shantanu Kumar
<kumar.shant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To help me understand, would you like to share how was this conclusion
> derived ("Clojure - being a Lisp dialect - has a steeper learning
> curve due to its syntax and more purely functional nature.")? Scala
> has more syntax/semantics than Clojure AFAICT. Was it familiarity with
> the Java syntax?I can't speak for the original poster, but it seems like a fair assessment to me. Scala is, as you point out, more complicated in many ways than Clojure. But there is a subset of Scala that looks and behaves very similarly to Java. It is possible for a Java programmer to make the transition by starting in the "looks-and-acts-like-Java" subset of Scala, and gradually learn about its more functional aspects. Clojure, while arguably simpler overall, doesn't offer this kind of migration path. -- 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
