Are Steve Yegge's comments blogged/written anywhere? The last post I could find on his blog http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/ was about Haskel and written 12/1/2010.
Thanks. cmn On Jul 1, 3:59 pm, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all. I've been looking at Clojure for the past month, having had a > previous look at it a couple of years ago and then moved on to other > things only to return to it now. > > Over the past decade I have looked at many languages and many ways of > doing things. People may say this language or that language is > "general purpose", but the fact remains that languages have their > niches in which they excel and beyond which it'd be foolish to > venture. > > Clojure should not attempt be a "mass success" language or worry about > its Tiobe index ranking. > > Clojure, the way I see it, is most suitable for the advanced > independent developer. It is a language in the image of its creator, > Rich Hickey. It's not a language for the factory hen. It won't become > the next Java. Java already fills that niche, and despite what some > may say, I don't see it going away anytime soon. > > I don't feel Clojure needs to "grow" - in terms of size of language. > In fact it would worry me enormously if Clojure's path is to "grow" in > size. It is fundamentally unsuited for that. If anything I wish for it > to shrink even further and further. > > A Rich Hickey's quote comes to mind: > • (paraphrased) "Most Clojure programmers go through an arc. First > they think “eww, Java” and try to hide all the Java. Then they think > “ooh, Java” and realize that Clojure is a powerful way to write Java > code" > and "As I've said in my talks, most Clojure users go from "eww, Java > libs" to "ooh, Java libs", leveraging the fact there there is already > a lib for almost anything they need to do. And using the lib is > completely transparent, idiomatic and wrapper free." - Google verbatim > for sources. > > Whereas when Steve Yegge writes: "which means that everyone (including > me!) who is porting Java code to Clojure (which, by golly, is a good > way to get a lot of people using Clojure) is stuck having to rework > the code semantically rather than just doing the simplest possible > straight port. The more they have to do this, the more you're going > to shake users off the tree." all I could think on reading this is > "horror, horror, oh God, horror!!!; he really doesn't get it". First, > he shouldn't be porting Java code to clojure, Second, Clojure IS > fundamentally different from Java, and third, such said users who > don't want to touch Java should not touch Clojure. > > Clojure shouldn't worry about growing; java already has innumerable > libs. Clojure, imho, should continue its - what I would dub - > "middleware begone!" path, in which it'd provide an end-to-end, down- > to-the-metal comprehensible system that an individual developer can > get his head round and know exactly what's happening with his code and > its environment here and everywhere. > > I could write more, but I have to run. Regards. > J. -- 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
