If we want to practice semantic versioning[0] and the next iteration is introducing backwards-incompatible changes, we should go with 2.0. However, I have my reservations. Clojure itself feels solid to code with, but the *ecosystem* doesn't feel very 2.0. For that it would need:
- definitive, simple, integrated package management - a better REPL experience out of the box (esp. Jline support) - a simpler, more useful stack trace - better commandline integration - abstracting away Java concepts like excessive hierarchies for package definitions (src/com/mycompany/wow/this/is/getting/long/my-library.clj) - better discovery for existing, well-tested libraries. [0] http://semver.org/ Those, for me, are the rough edges of Clojure, the ones that aggravate me at times. They don't have as much to do with the language itself as with the ecosystem, so I'm okay calling a new version of the language "2.0". Just my $0.02. David Jacobs On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Lärry <ki6...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gang - > > I'm still in the "playing" stage with the language. I'm exploring > Clojure and > prototyping ideas for future directions. The language is very > expressive and > its community is quite supportive. > > One thing the environment lacks is a good, current book for > beginners. Oh, > there are a couple of good books out there. The problem is that the > books are > out-dated, because they are based on versions 1.0 or 1.1. This means > that the > language needs to be rich enough and we need to settle on a "standard" > platform > and stick with it long enough for the writers to catch up. (This > doesn't mean > stagnation. Please don't let Clojure 2.0 become the end of the line - > like > "Java 2".) > > Version 2.0 of any product usually signifies a "coming-of-age", where > it is > ready for prime-time, ready to become THE solution for a certain set > of > problems. If we believe that the next release of Clojure will be the > platform > for the next stage of growth, then I'm all for calling it 2.0. If > it's just a > stepping-stone, call it 1.3. > > The other thing the environment needs is a "killer app". But that's a > different > thread... > > > - Larry > > -- > 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 > -- 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
