On Jul 2, 4:16 pm, Aaron Bedra <aaron.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although I agree with the ideas here that have already been stated by > Rich, I am concerned about this message. There is no reason to stand > against somebody. Steve is welcome to his own opinions and is an > incredibly smart guy. He should be respected as a peer. His opinions > happen to be different from Clojure's core values, and that is ok. > Steve will either choose to use Clojure or go another path, and that is > alright. > > The way for Clojure to grow is by embracing it's core values and showing > the world that careful choices do lead to the right outcome. Let's not > turn this into us against Steve. There's nothing productive there. > Focus your energy instead on writing great Clojure code and sharing it > with everyone else. Get people excited about Clojure who want something > more powerful, and show them what is truly possible. > > Cheers, > > Aaron Bedra > -- > Clojure/corehttp://clojure.com > > On 07/01/2011 03:59 PM, James Keats wrote: >
To be absolutely clear, I am not against Steve Yegge as a person. The title of my post was "Please stand firm against Steve Yegge's "yes language" push". I implore you as clojure core and clojure community to stand firm against his "yes language" push. I did not intend the message of my post to be personal/social issues, despite the unfortunate fact that the thrust of his posts in that thread revolved around his concept of social "attitude" of a language creator and community and the evident implication that such social considerations should take primacy over technical merits. -- 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
