2013/3/12 Dave Kincaid <kincaid.d...@gmail.com> > Before long Clojure will have as much ugly, arcane syntax as Scala. (I say > that mostly tongue in cheek, btw). For me, a lot of the attractiveness of > Lisp languages is the minimal syntax that they have. I'm not a fan of > adding more to Clojure than is already there. I'm just one voice and a very > new one to Clojure, so I doubt my opinion will sway anyone else. I do love > Clojure and hope to be able to use it more in the future, but I'll probably > stick to the very basic syntax and forgo all this fancy sugar. > > I understand your concern. But be assured that the reputation of Clojure, in contrast, say, with Scala, is that it's a NO language rather than a YES language.
Rich always thinks way more than twice before adding operators, and that's a good thing. For instance, there's been the -?> operator in clojure.core.incubator for 3 years (at least) before it has been standardized into some-> in Clojure 1.5 Another example : pods would be a new kind of ref, in gestation for more than 2 years. Not ready ? Not sure ? Won't include. Cheers, -- Laurent Petit -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
