On 18 October 2014 21:02, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think all of James' points about the proven value of structuring an > application primarily around data rather than a complex API are right on > point. It is one of the things I love about the Clojure philosophy. > > But there's nothing about the value of data-driven development that > requires data lookups and data computations to be so different. There's > plenty of room for Clojure to have continued evolution in this area and > still preserve the essence of its approach. > It seems counter to the idea of keeping code and data separate, and also a fairly leaky abstraction. If you allow computed fields that are indistinguishable from value fields, then you remove many of the guarantees that you have with a pure data structure. For example, how would you serialise a computed field? Would you just ignore it? Does that mean that changing the computed fields around would result in different serialisation? Is there any way of connecting a serialised data structure with computed fields to the right code? So the approach isn't without tradeoffs and increased complexity. I'd also need convincing this is even a problem, as I don't recall a time when this would have been useful in my own work. - James -- 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.
