On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Haupt <d.haup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > an advantage i see is very, very concise code since you have no type > annotations at all. the downside is that exactly this code might be > unreadable - because you just have no idea what it uses and what it > does without tests or documentation.
I find Clojure code more readable because it is generic. Instead of some algorithm specialized by type, Clojure often deals with simpler generic algorithms that are applicable to a broader class of data structures which can also mean more reuse. Writing truly generic code in the presence of a strong type system is often harder word and tends to produce much more dense, more annotated code that I find harder to understand. Take a look at the documentation for the Scala collection library, for example (I'm not dissing Scala - I like Scala, but I don't think anyone will disagree that the auto-generated documentation based on the library type signatures is very hard to read, at least for the "average developer"). -- 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
