Please note that I don't want to start a big argument either. On Feb 10, 11:01 pm, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > The LISP syntax can be viewed as a bad thing. I for one struggle with > it from time to time. I personally haven't decided if I think the LISP > syntax is a pro or a con.
I think this is fair. Lisp languages work for me, mostly because they make stuff that seems "special" in other languages much more explicit and hackable. YMMV. > And the dynamicness of Clojure can be considered a bad thing > performance-wise. Many benchmarks will show Clojure trailing a bit > behind C# in pure number crunching performance. Dynamic languages make *development* fast. At least compared to Java/C style "static" languages. Even if you're working on a program where performance really matters, the big gains are very probably only to be found in about 20% of the code base (and I think I'm being very generous here). For the other 80% dynamic vs static typing is a non- issue. But in a static language, you're still paying the extra development time for that 80% of code where it doesn't matter. Again, YMMV, IMHO, bla bla bla Joost. -- 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
