On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Colin Fleming wrote: > It's true that both Laurent's and my suggestions are complicated, but we're > thinking about it from an implementer's point of view. What I currently have > from a *user's* point of view for classes is great, you just don't think > about it. I don't know how much Java development you've done, but this is > conceptually similar to (although more complicated than) maintaining the > imports in a Java file. Basically, when I'm editing Java I never ever have to > see the imports or do anything manual. When I add a new class I need the IDE > adds them, and when I no longer use it the IDE takes it away and tidies the > imports up. The import section of the code is generally folded by default so > I never even see them. Of course this is relatively complicated behind the > scenes but as a user I don't care - that's why I'm using the IDE. I'm not > there yet with Clojure since I don't remove the classes automatically, but > I'll do that soon, or at least mark the class as unused and provide a > quickfix to remove it. That's the holy grail for ns management in Clojure I > think. It may or may not be possible with a nice UI, time will tell. > > Oh, and with imports, at least, if you modify them by hand the IDE cooperates > nicely with your modifications. If you then edit outside the IDE, right, you > have to do all this by hand and you realise why you now use an IDE because > you've totally forgotten the pain involved. However we shouldn't use that as > an argument not to add this functionality, if we did we'd all be using > notepad still :-) > > Of course, all this is orthogonal to removing :use from the language, which I > don't have strong feelings about except for my rant yesterday about how > complicated it can get to be. Sadly, as a tool developer I'll have to support > both for the foreseeable future anyway.
I come at Clojure mostly from the Lisp side, and have only written small programs in Java -- experiments and exercises, quite a bit in Processing (which hides a lot of this stuff, quite conveniently), and what little Java I've had to do to work in Clojure. In some cases I've chosen other languages when Java was an option precisely because Java seems to require so much ceremony to do anything. I can see that if the ceremony is really necessary, and if these smart IDE solutions can really hide it without unintended consequences, then sure, handling it in the IDE is a great idea. But I don't think that's a good rationale for multiplying the ceremony required to get Clojure functions to see each other across namespaces by several hundred percent. Better to avoid requiring the ceremony in the first place than to engineer IDEs to automatically manage and hide it. -Lee -- -- 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.
