I don't have a strong opinion about the version number but I want to say that David's critiques of the state of the ecosystem all ring true to me. FWIW (and I offer this only because Saul is "genuinely interested in how they don't meet your needs" :-) here are my own responses to David's suggestions/questions about Saul's critiques:
On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Saul Hazledine wrote: > Below are suggestions to the shortcomings you mention. I'm genuinely > interested in how they don't meet your needs. > > On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, David Jacobs <develo...@allthingsprogress.com> > wrote: >> - definitive, simple, integrated package management > Leiningen and Cake? Both seem great but neither plays nice with an editor/IDE/workflow that works well for me. Eclipse/CCW is my current favorite and while there are ways to use lein in conjunction with Eclipse projects they are seriously non-intuitive. I was initially very excited about TextMate/cake but some basic things failed to work and my posted issue on the textmate-clojure github site got no reply so I cooled on this and went back to Eclipse/CCW. I'm a long-time emacs user but the installation/configuration issues are infuriating, especially in a teaching context (which is important for me), as are some of the decades-old UI conventions. > >> - a better REPL experience out of the box (esp. Jline support) > Slime/Emacs? I only use the REPL in very rare cases and aren't > bothered by a lack of JLine. See above. I'm looking for a non-emacs solution (or maybe I'd be happy with a fail-proof simple Aquamacs-for-clojure single-click-download+installer). I use REPLs all the time and want them to have basic features like parentheses matching, language-aware indentation, and the ability to scroll through history. > >> - a simpler, more useful stack trace > Slime? See above. > >> - better commandline integration > > https://github.com/gar3thjon3s/clargon Not actually a concern of mine. > >> - abstracting away Java concepts like excessive hierarchies for package >> definitions (src/com/mycompany/wow/this/is/getting/long/my-library.clj) > > You don't have to use this convention. Personally I keep things > shallow. Some tools force or strongly encourage such conventions (and they vary among tools). If I recall correctly NetBeans/Enclojure uses fairly deep hierarchies. Eclipse's are shallower, I think, and the default for new projects in cake is somewhere in between. I gather that keeping things completely flat is somehow impossible or bad in the Java ecosystem in general, but the variation among all of the popular tools is indeed bothersome. >> - better discovery for existing, well-tested libraries. > > You can search on http://clojars.org/. This works well for me. > However, the key to well tested libraries is having people give > feedback if a library breaks or is badly documented or doesn't meet > their needs. I'm still surprised sometimes even by things that are in core or contrib that I hadn't seen previously. Clojure.org doesn't help much with this, in my experience. I've found some of the newer documentation sites (like http://clojuredocs.org/) to be quite good but again this is sort of scattered, with a bunch of things of different levels of completeness and quality and not a lot of guidance to the newcomer about where to go to get oriented. If this situation could be firmed up for core+contrib, and then expanded to other libraries, then that would be fantastic. Just my e cents or so. -Lee -- 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
