On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The Javascript notaries have advocated using a small functional subset > of javascript, rather than the full gamut of javscript's quirks, and I > was saddened while watching the Rich Hickey talk when he said that > clojurescript would abstract away the complex conventions and > discipline required when writing apps for gClosure by producing code > ready for its optimizing compiler, when it could've simply enforced > that small functional subset of javascript itself (sans gClosure) > that's now considered idiomatic best practice. Restricting yourself to a functional subset of JavaScript can't fix JavaScript. The functional subset stinks, Javascript notaries be damned. 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
