Let's stop feeding this thread and turn our attention toward healthy and productive discussion. This is my first and final post on this matter.
Sent via Mobile On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:56 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 3:08 pm, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Timothy, and thanks for your much-better-than-others' reply. > > >>> Oh I will be washing my hands and be gone for sure, as coding and >>> making things better is precisely what I offered in my OP, which was >>> taken as a "threat" and I was told to start a "separate mailing list" >>> for it; perhaps this community welcomes folks who don't know any >>> better than to be invariably effusive for everything in it, but for >>> those who do it it quite evidently has not been. >> >> But I think you need to understand what exactly it is that you are >> asking of Rich and the other ClojureScript devs whith your original >> comment. Rich's comment is not abnormal for the type of request you >> are making. I have seen his type of reply before. >> > > And what is it exactly I was "asking of" them?! I offered to > singlehandedly "fork" and redo it. > > >> For a second let's try to cool down and see the logic process used in >> Clojure to start with. Standard Clojure was developed on the JVM...for >> one reason...it provides a platform to stand on while developing a new >> language. We already have a type system, GC, etc. Could Rich have >> developed all this from scratch? Sure, but we'd probably still be at >> Clojure 0.1, and no one would be using the language in production. >> Believe me, I've actually attempted writing Clojure in a lower level >> language (both PyPy and C++), and it's not pretty, the level of tools >> that exist for the JVM and the level of the JVMs themselves shaved >> years of development time off the creation of Clojure. >> > > No, sorry, this doesn't make sense. No reasonable person would've > expected Rich to "develop from scratch" a "type system, GC, etc." for > javascript, and this has nothing to do with Google's Closure tools. > >> What does this have to do with ClojureScript? Well I think it shows >> the thought process that Rich uses when developing a new language. He >> looks at his tools and finds platforms that make is life easier. >> >> So, let's for the sake of argument, enumerate the features of both >> sides of this question: >> >> jQuery: >> Understood by the JS community >> Helps manipulate the DOM >> Provides some UI routines >> Optimizes code size via minifiers >> >> Closure: >> Enforces a strict OOP model >> Provides Graphics routines (canvas) >> Provides DOM manipulation routines >> Provides many UI routines >> Provides encryption, networking, spellchecking, math libraries etc. >> Has a full optimizing compiler >> >> The cons of Closure is of course that it's not well understood by the >> JS community. But this really isn't a language for the JS community, >> so is that really a problem? >> >> I think Rich looked at both these options (and many more), and simply >> picked the right tool for the job at hand. No! I would never use >> Closure for a website I was writing in JS. It would be a major pain in >> the neck. But I plan on using Clojure and ClojureScript for my future >> web needs. >> > > Right, so you wouldn't use it in JS but you'd use it with an > additional layer of indirection (translated from another language) > that'd make working with it and reasoning about what's actually > happening and debugging even more of a pain. Sorry, this doesn't make > sense either. > > I have already addressed other points, such as favoring it for > "enforcing a strict OOP model" as being an serious affront to the > credibility of clojure's rationale and advocacy and that its > optimizing compiler made sense back when most of the browsers out > there were IE6 but is no longer a reasonable priority. > > Regards, and thanks again for your better-than-others' reply, I won't > be coding anything though after all this and I'll still be gone. For > sanity's sake, you guys ought to realize - for your own sake - that as > things stand you surely won't be "kicking butt" with clojurescript. > >> Just like you can write Clojure code and not care what Java is doing >> under the hood. Now you can write Clojure for the browser and not care >> about what JS is doing. >> >> ______________ >> >> So after taking that all into consideration, I'm confident, that if >> you took the time to develop a POC that showed that a jQuery based >> ClojureScript would be faster, smaller, and better than one developed >> with Clojure, Rich would probably switch in a heartbeat. But until you >> have hard evidence, it's really hard to convince anyone. >> >> Timothy > > -- > 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 -- 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
