OK, good. Now, say you're sorry if you offended him. -"I'm sorry if I offended you." And you, say you're sorry if you over-reacted. "I'm sorry if I over-reacted." Very good. Now, shake hands. Good. I love you both. You should love each other too. You'll need each other later.
-- Father of three boys On 25 Juli, 00:34, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well I'm very very sorry if the intent of my post was misunderstood or > I articulated it poorly, but I would like to emphasize, Rich, that I'm > a big fan of yours and in no way intended to exhaust you, I was merely > and honestly voicing my concerns, just like in a previous thread I > have quoted you time and again and voiced my agreement with and > admiration of your work and positions with regard to clojure itself. I > have watched all your talks on vimeo several times, and read most of > what I could find online of interviews with you, and with regard to > clojurescript I did read the rationale, I watched your talk twice and > carefully, and I had the google closure book for almost a year now, > which includes a reprint of the article you linked to and that I had > previously linked to this this thread. > > "forking" was in no way a threat, but a suggested possibility to see > what everyone here thought, whether there were others like me, who > aren't fond of google closure, who perceive a demand for it, as a non- > gclosure alternative that'd be part of the clojure toolset. > Unfortunately my intent seems to have been misunderstood or I'd > miscommunicated it, whichever, I find regrettable. > > On Jul 24, 10:28 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:19 am, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed. > > > I'll make sure you get a refund then. > > > Seriously, this is like being disappointed an action movie was an > > action movie instead of a comedy. Your expectations are a complete > > mismatch for the intentions of ClojureScript. > > > > First of all, congrats and good job to all involved in putting it out. > > > On the plus side, it's a good way to use the Google Closure javascript > > > platform. > > > > On the minus, imho, that's what's wrong with it. > > > > Google Closure is too Java. > > > Actually, it's too JavaScript. Some JS proponents want to disavow its > > pseudo class model, but it certainly is part of the design of > > JavaScript. And it has some particular advantages over the other > > strategies, as outlined here: > > >http://bolinfest.com/javascript/inheritance.php > > > > It's not idiomatic JavaScript. > > > There's no such thing as idiomatic JavaScript. There are a lot of > > different conventions used by different libraries. > > > > I find it > > > disappointing that rather than porting from a functional language like > > > Clojure straight to another functional language like Javascript, the > > > google closure with its ugly Java-isms is right there obnoxiously in > > > the middle. > > > In the middle of what? I look at ClojureScript code and it looks like > > Clojure to me. Google Closure is under, and it is no more annoying > > there than Java is under Clojure - an implementation detail, and a > > rich source of production-quality code. > > > > Then, there's the elephant in the room, and that elephant is Jquery. I > > > believe any targetting-javascript tool that misses out on jquery-first- > > > and-foremost is missing out on the realities of javascript in 2011. > > > Should it be the purpose of a new language like ClojureScript to > > orient itself around the realities of currently popular JavaScript > > libraries? I think not. If you want jQuery as the center of your > > universe, JavasScript is your language - good luck with it. I see > > jQuery as a tool to be leveraged when appropriate (i.e. rarely in > > large programs), not an architectural centerpiece. > > > > Jquery is huge in its community and plugins, and it has tons of books > > > and tutorials. > > > So what? Those people are satisfied by, and not leaving, JavaScript, > > and I'm fine with that. > > > > Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point. > > > If you seriously cannot see the benefits of Google's compiler then you > > are not the target audience for ClojureScript. In any case, for those > > interested there is an argument for Google's approach in the > > rationale, as well as this page on the wiki: > > >https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Google-Closure > > > > I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps > > > so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority. > > > Is that a threat, or a promise? I suggest you start by writing up a > > rationale like this one: > > >https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Rationale > > > making your intentions and the superiority of your approach clear. > > Then prepare yourself for messages from people who don't bother to > > read or understand it. > > > Messages like yours make creating things and releasing them for free a > > really exhausting endeavor. > > > Good luck with your fork - please start a separate mailing list for > > discussions about it. > > > Rich > > > p.s. note to others - if you have read the docs and have honest > > questions about the approach, I and others would be happy to explain. > > But we could do without messages about disappointment, threats of > > forks etc. ClojureScript is an action movie, and we're interested in > > helping people kick butt. -- 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
