On Jul 24, 7:24 pm, Michael Gardner <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 2011, at 1:11 PM, James Keats wrote: > > >> Restricting yourself to a functional subset of JavaScript can't fix > >> JavaScript. The functional subset stinks, Javascript notaries be damned. > > > If so where does this leave clojure itself and its advocacy of > > functional programming, then; see last paragraph of my reply to Mark. > > You can't draw any inference along those lines from David's observation.
I'm not drawing an inference, but an argument. > The functional parts of Javascript are far different from those of Clojure > (and not in a good way). How so? javasript, while not as functional as clojure, is far more functional than java ( first class functions, closures, anonymous functions etc. A small subset of clojure would mirror and could expand on a small subset of javascript); it's been called a "Lisp in C's Clothing", and Brendan Eich famously and repeatedly said "As I’ve often said, and as others at Netscape can confirm, I was recruited to Netscape with the promise of “doing Scheme” in the browser" Back at Netscape "doing a scheme in the browser" was botched a bit by a deal with Sun and "the diktat from upper engineering management was that the language must “look like Java”."[1], and whereas clojure/ clojurescript now had an opportunity to correct that, instead it's piling on the Java-ism with gClosure. [1] http://brendaneich.com/tag/history/ -- 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
