> 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.
Do you think that "looks-and-acts-like-Java"-subset is good? My thinking is why switch the language if you going to keep doing the same thing and lots of them will. With Clojure you have to learn FP (and other stuff). With clojure you would have a big drop of prodactivity and then a slow but stead rise again. With scala you would have a small drop of prodactivity and you would get to the java level again pretty fast but the real payback would take time. So from a managers point of you I can see the danger in clojure and would take scala too. A small and agile team would be better served with clojure because the would learn faster. Thats just my thinking. I don't have any experiance or data to support this. P.S. Didn't know company's have developers meeting like this where developers have a say. Pretty Intressting. -- 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
