On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:19 PM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, "good lisp programmers", I have no argument against that, the > key operative word here being *good*; where do you find those in large > enough numbers to fill industry positions? I would also like to be > specific about what "good" would entail: it has to entail some > knowledge of what would actually work in the large and be > maintainable, and a personal maturity that would prevent them from > becoming too excited and overly adventurous. Unfortunately the > industry is not made of "good lisp programmers". > "good" is more important than Lisp. I think a "good" programmer can easily pick up Lisp and run with it. Which is exactly what I think we're witnessing in the Clojure community. Most people here are not experienced Lispers. > Versus the countless libraries and apps of Java and python? > I was only talking about the scalability of Lisp with respect to code base size. David -- 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
