I find both sides of this argument to be bafflingly extremist. On one side, we have people who think that literate programming is so important and so compelling, that the state and ease of the tooling surrounding it doesn't really matter.
On the other side, we have people who insist that well-written code never needs an explanation, and argue that explanations actively make things worse. I find it difficult to relate because it seems so clear to me that both these extremes are false and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I really liked the spirit of the poster who kicked off this thread. Let's build tools that explore more points along the spectrum than just full-blown Knuth literate programming, or just Clojure doc-strings, or no comments at all. I think there's a sweet spot in there that we haven't reached yet. -- 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.
