> I'm with you 100% on the mind-blowing greatness of literate > programming,
Actually, it's not the technology of literate programming I'm on about. Rich Hickey comes up with marvelous and insightful ideas and reduces them to practice, like his work on reasonable big-O data structures or his work on software transactional memory. Or his work on ... Yet if you look at the code you see nothing. Which means that the next set of people who get to slice-and-dice the code after Rich will miss some of the insight and get it wrong. I've seen it happen in many places. The apprentice is rarely as good as the master. Not to cast stones at the rest of the Clojure group, I'm just using hasty-generalization, my favorite form of reasoning, from my experience. I find that literate programming is the only way to capture the insight and keep it where it belongs, adjacent and intermixed with the code, but written for humans-to-human communication. Clojure is heavy with great ideas and they need to be communicated intact. Tim Daly -- -- 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.
