> I wouldn't worry too much about differences because a book was written for > clojure 1.2 or 1.3 even though 1.5 is only just around the corner. The > differences are minor and tend to be most directly related to more advanced > topics that are unlikely to be of critical importance to begin with. Once > you have covered the content in these books, you will pick up the minor > differences in later versions easily enough. >
The changes that happened between 1.0 and 1.3 are not just in the language---they are quite a bit in how the language is being *approached. *For example, in the "old" days the number-one subject everywhere was the Clojure STM and refs. Halloway's book doesn't even feature atoms, if I remember correctly, or at least it downplays them, pushing refs into the spotlight. Today it is pretty much accepted that atoms and agents are very useful and refs and the STM plays a side-role. In my personal experience, for quite a long time I had lived with some sort of guilty feeling about the fact that I never ended up using refs; even if I did use them, the usage was kind of trivial, I felt I was doing something wrong. It took me a while to grow confidence that it's not me---it's the STM. Not that it is broken in any way, it's just that the use cases where it brings value are vanishingly rare. Newer books that speak from more years of living and breathing Clojure contain many nuggets of wisdom such as this, this is why they are important for a beginner. -- 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
