On Jul 26, 1:53 am, Christian Marks <9fv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 6:11 pm, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:> I ask, what > is it that I did other than "seriously inquire about the > > rationale"?! > > You started a thread with the non-serious title, "Alright, fess up, > whose unhappy with clojurescript?" > instead of the more serious "Comments on the clojurescript rationale." > Having done that, you could have addressed the rationale.
It was a serious title. I'm still surprised that I seem to be the only one here unhappy with it. I suspected some might've shared my unhappiness but weren't confessing it, perhaps, evidently, for fear of "inciting controversy" or "ruffling feathers". And the content of my OP was clear and to the point. > > > then there's a big wide merciless world out there that'll find it > > absolutely ridiculous for Rich Hickey to rail against classes and > > inheritance on and on and then favor a library and post a link titled > > "inheritance" that argues for hoisting a pseudoclassical version of it > > upon a language that tries to be functional as proof that it is > > advantageous. Perhaps clojure itself should have classes and > > inheritance and Rich should instead of apologizing for having once > > taught it to people apologize for teaching them clojure. > > Oh dear, this is jumbled prose for someone who "always advocates" > taking > a "managerial attitude." So much for the managerial attitude. What > happened to "love you, man"? One gathers that managers offer > conditional > apologies and then quickly and resentfully withdraw them. It isn't "jumbled prose", it is clear and to the point; enough of these inane replies. I was reacting to Rich' apparently and needlessly hurt feelings, and he's not someone I'm managing. That "love you, man" was specifically to address his feelings, and had nothing to do with my managerial ways - if someone I'm managing had reacted to my technical feedback with a temper tantrum I would've fired him, which is effectively what I'll be doing by washing my hands of clojure. You folks need to sort this out. Rich needs to put a price on clojure, a monthly or yearly price - none of this appeal/gift nonsense - so he doesn't revealingly reply to technical feedback with a revealingly sarcastic "I'll make sure you get a refund". Perhaps this might work as a reply to idle leechers, but for people who value their own time and have an ounce of self-respect it is highly offensive. Just by merely paying attention to Rich and clojure, serious folks are incurring a cost already. If I pay attention to someone preaching to me on and on and then he does something that contradicts his preaching then I will feel that my time had been wasted, even robbed. Just because clojure is open source doesn't mean he can't get paid for it, and just because he gets paid for it doesn't mean he has to answer to anybody. I can priate jetbrain's intellij if i so wish, and were I to pay for a copy and then demand that jetbrains put a flight simulator in it or institute a 120hrs workweek they still wouldn't need to answer to that. I believe clojurescript is a mistake that Rich should've put more of his "hammock time" into, and he should unashamedly put a price on his hammock time. -- 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
