On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > If so where does this leave clojure itself and its advocacy of > functional programming, then; see last paragraph of my reply to Mark.
Given that JS is merely the "assembler" that ClojureScript targets - in exactly the same way that Java bytecode is the "assembler" that Clojure targets on the JVM (and presumably CLR bytecode for that VM) - I don't see why you're concerned about the Closure library here. Clojure developers are used to working with nice, clean functional wrappers around Java libraries so why should ClojureScript be any different? Closure is an implementation detail. (and, yes, you do seem to be trolling... again) -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
