On Tuesday, November 8, 2011 8:04:19 AM UTC+2, Sean Corfield wrote: > > docstrings? > Yeah, sure, but docstrings aren't linkable. It's interesting that Java, with all its faults, has an incredible documentation system. Scala has a problem in this field, too, since the complex typing and tricks and advanced features used to generate DSLs make Scaladocs almost useless in some cases. That is one of Scala's major pain points, IMO. I think Clojure could have a better documentation story. Maybe automatic links inside docstrings? Maybe tagging docstrings (and I mean tags like GMail tags. Something which helps you create ad-hoc groupings)?
A lot of folks here are successfully using Clojure in large, > complex projects > Well, that in itself is reassuring. Can anyone share the size of the team involved? The duration of the project? I realize that young languages don't yet have well-established industry-wide development practices (do old languages?), but some of them bear greater similarity to what we have been doing for years, and some, like Clojure, are more novel (if not in their language concepts, then in their commercial applications). They might hold greater promise, but are more scary to introduce into working teams. I think the developer community, at least those of us more fearful to tread into uncharted territory, would greatly benefit from talks/blog posts focusing on the *process *of developing in Clojure, thus making the territory more... charted. -- 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
