On Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:03:04 PM UTC-4, Las wrote: > > Warren, > > I think the issue is this: > > You claim there is sg. broken in clojure while admitting that you know > little about how the design decision was made. > > People that know clojure's implementation and the history of design > decisions inside-out offered advice why they think it is not broken, they > took time to explain the rationale for decision and even offerred advice > how to "fix it" for yourself should you insist on your view of the matter. > > It seems to me you > a) need to reread these arguments to perhaps get a better grasp > b) have chosen to ignore them. > > While you have right to do either of them, if it's b) not even the > "clojure gods" can really help you unless you actually spend some time with > the internals of clojure. ;-). > > Las > > > First, this will be my last post on this thread, so I will be absolved from "attention seeking". But really, as you have pointed out, things are getting in a kind of circle and we may just need to sit back and think for a while.
I think some people agree with me something is broken here (puzzler, for example. Please correct me is I am wrong as I don't want to hijack other people's opinion). For the other people who don't agree with me, I am not really ignoring their argument (I tried hard to reply to each of them), it is just, I am not really convinced. No I don't know the language inside-out, and I don't know much about the implementation. But I was trying to keep my discussion on the high-level abstraction. If somebody told me "Warren, I agree with you that the abstractions and design principles need some fixing, but man it is very hard to do now, take my word for it", even nothing changed I will feel better using Clojure because at least people admit there is a problem and there is a chance it will get fixed in the future (on on another host language). So far I have not get that kind of feedback. We all choose what we think is right for us, so there is no imposing anything on anybody. I appreciate the fact at least there is the language Clojure we can talk about. Thanks you all for the participation. And I will much more comfortalbe Of course in the end -- 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
