Phil, > I like the general idea of the Valentin's proposal, but I don't > understand every bit of it. It sounds complicated. Personally, I'd > rather see something that's relatively simple, and good enough, than > something that's perfect but unwieldy. If it's too difficult, people > won't use it, or they'll waste time, or feel that the Clojure > community expects them to spend too much time on something that > detracts from what's important.
Can I ask, quite seriously and not intending any sarcasm, what you mean by "detracts from what's important"? For me, "what's important" is to communicate ideas, designs, and details from one developer to another so that others can maintain, modify, and extend what exists. I've already held forth on what I think that implies so I won't bore you with it. What I don't understand is your criteria for "what's important" and how that translates to action. If we can agree on "what's important" then the technical details would have common criteria for "simple and good enough vs something that's perfect but unwieldy". 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/d/optout.
