On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Chas Emerick wrote:
>> True. Look at the results - the top five big wins are:
>> * Functional programming
>> * Platform (JVM) compatibility / interop
>> * The REPL
>> * Immutability
>>
> My phrasing may very well have gotten in the way. "Big wins" isn't exactly
>
On Jul 13, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>> Or it could just be that some of the other things on that list were so
>> compelling that they overshadowed these.
>>
>> * The REPL
>> * Functional Programming
>> * Ease of development
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> Or it could just be that some of the other things on that list were so
> compelling that they overshadowed these.
>
> * The REPL
> * Functional Programming
> * Ease of development
True. Look at the results - the top five big wins are:
* Fu
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Albert Cardona wrote:
> What prevents me from using it is that clojure 1.3.* is still alpha or
> early beta, and it's been for a long time.
Well, those features are all in Clojure 1.2.0 so nothing is preventing
you using them.
That said, so far I haven't had much
We use 1.2 in prod with protocols... no need to wait for 1.3
Luc P.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 06:52:01 -0400
Albert Cardona wrote:
> Chas,
>
> "It seems that relatively few people are taking advantage of some of
> Clojure’s most sophisticated and unique features: metadata; protocols,
> records, and t
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant wrote:
> I've found that (some of) Clojure's advanced features are best taught in
> terms of simpler ideas
> that most programmers would be familiar with.
+1
-
Brian Marick, Artisanal Labrador
Contract programming in Ruby and Clojure
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> Albert Cardona writes:
>
>> "It seems that relatively few people are taking advantage of some of
>> Clojure’s most sophisticated and unique features: metadata; protocols,
>> records, and types; and multimethods. These facilities are absolu
Albert Cardona writes:
> "It seems that relatively few people are taking advantage of some of
> Clojure’s most sophisticated and unique features: metadata; protocols,
> records, and types; and multimethods. These facilities are absolutely
> game-changers, at least IMO. Either most domains have
Indeed, all of these features were introduced in 1.2.0. Metadata has been
around since (roughly) the beginning.
It's true that metadata being available only for "Clojure types" (those that
implement clojure.lang.IObj) is unfortunate — but I wouldn't say that that's
reason to consider the mecha
I think for me at least leveraging the polymorphism that the seq
abstraction provides gets you such a long way compared to collection
libs in other languages that you don't have to reach for the other
features as quickly.
I think Rich even stated that as one of the reasons for delaying their
introd
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Jonathan Fischer Friberg <
odysso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> multimethods - since close to every mention of multimethods also involves
> telling how slow they are, these are most often shunned.
>
>
I don't get that impression. MM's seem to be pushed as a "first c
All those are available in 1.2, or am I missing something?
>From my own experience:
metadata, when I started to learn clojure, I thought "this is awesome". When
I realized that metadata only applies to clojure types, it felt unreliable
and I never got to using it.
protocols & records/types - they
I've found that (some of) Clojure's advanced features are best taught in
terms of simpler ideas
that most programmers would be familiar with.
For example, excuse the plug, I motivated multimethods by relating them to
simple conditionals
like "case". I think I succeeded in making MMs just look like
Chas,
"It seems that relatively few people are taking advantage of some of
Clojure’s most sophisticated and unique features: metadata; protocols,
records, and types; and multimethods. These facilities are absolutely
game-changers, at least IMO. Either most domains have no use for them
(I can’t b
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:18:12 PM UTC-7, Chas Emerick wrote:
>
> I hesitate to go even more meta, but since I started the thread, I thought
> I would say:
>
> I talked for a bit in the results post about mailing list threads going
> into the weeds; at least IMO, this one qualifies. It wouldn'
Perhaps this discussion requires its own thread?
Sent via mobile
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
>> ...
>>> Python's major weakness, in this multicore age, is the global
>>> interpreter lock -- has there been any progress on creati
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> ...
>> Python's major weakness, in this multicore age, is the global
>> interpreter lock -- has there been any progress on creating a viable
>> Python breed that has true concurrency?
>
>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
...
> Python's major weakness, in this multicore age, is the global
> interpreter lock -- has there been any progress on creating a viable
> Python breed that has true concurrency?
FWIW, Jython and IronPython don't suffer from the GIL.
CPython c
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> ...
>> It's not hard to think up the likely objections from a lot of people,
>> too, and why they'd be looking for something new:
> ...
>> Python: poor performance
>>
>> Javascript: interpr
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Ken Wesson wrote:
...
> It's not hard to think up the likely objections from a lot of people,
> too, and why they'd be looking for something new:
...
> Python: poor performance
>
> Javascript: interpreted, so slow; "isn't this just for adding annoying
> ads to web
I hesitate to go even more meta, but since I started the thread, I thought I
would say:
I talked for a bit in the results post about mailing list threads going into
the weeds; at least IMO, this one qualifies. It wouldn't be the worst thing in
the world if it died right here. :-)
Cheers,
- C
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Tamreen Khan wrote:
> What does something being shiny and new have to do with how good its
> libraries, community, platforms, and support are?
See below.
> Heck, I'd say something being new would detract from it library-wise.
Not necessarily, if it can interoper
What does something being shiny and new have to do with how good its
libraries, community, platforms, and support are? Heck, I'd say something
being new would detract from it library-wise. Sergey's point was that when
someone begins a new project they have the options of all those languages;
Clojur
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Sergey Didenko
wrote:
> You know that from inside. A Clojure "outsider" can have a completely other
> point of view.
>
> He can choose between Python
Not new
> server side Javascript
Not new
> new C#
Despite what you just said, not new
> Go
Haven't heard of
"Besides the languages itself, the "outsider" wants to evaluate libraries,
community, platforms, support, etc.
That could be much more challenging than comparing a few bare languages."
Absolutely! I asked a couple of times for recommendations, and was quite
surprised at the lack of forthcoming re
You know that from inside. A Clojure "outsider" can have a completely other
point of view.
He can choose between Python, server side Javascript, new C#, Go, Scala, F#,
Haskell, Erlang, haXe, Clojure.
Besides the languages itself, the "outsider" wants to evaluate libraries,
community, platforms, s
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Adam Burry wrote:
> You've never seen a surgery up close.
>
> Many of the tools are wrapped in plastic and you need a helper to find
> them, open them, hand them to you, and clean them. You've got so many
> layers on you can't feel anything. The patient is moaning
That sounds more like Enterprise Java Development to me :)
On 12 July 2011 13:20, Adam Burry wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:58 am, Colin Yates wrote:
> > FWIW, I like clojure.org the way it is. Without sounding like a
> complete
> > muppet, I think of Clojure as a set of surgeon's tools, all clean and
On Jul 12, 7:58 am, Colin Yates wrote:
> FWIW, I like clojure.org the way it is. Without sounding like a complete
> muppet, I think of Clojure as a set of surgeon's tools, all clean and layed
> out on a shiny metal tray. Minimalist, simple, clean and massively
> effective once you have thought a
"What other new shiny languages are there with any traction? Scala, and
maybe F#?"
"new" and "traction" are pretty subjective. Sometimes (as in my case) the
searcher just needs enough to sell themselves on the tool they have already
chosen, i.e. just enough facts to fit my theory.
FWIW, I like c
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Sergey Didenko
wrote:
>
>> Public relations -- Project status and activity. This area seems to
>> suggest the main Clojure page should be covered in tickers and feeds
>> of various kinds
>
> I think the main site needs just a pane with a big noticeable header "News
> Public relations -- Project status and activity. This area seems to
> suggest the main Clojure page should be covered in tickers and feeds
> of various kinds
>
I think the main site needs just a pane with a big noticeable header "News",
that shows one-two latest important stories and updates one
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2011 02:36:34 UTC+2 schrieb Ken Wesson:
> An argument could be made that Clojure is aimed more at those who do
> that sort of "analytical comprehension" than those looking for the
> latest jazzy fad, but an argument could also be made that attracting a
> broader base is
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> Ken Wesson writes:
>
>> * How would you characterize your use of Clojure *today* -- you do
>> know that HTML supports true italics, right? :)
>
> Obviously *today* is meant to be rebound to a new value in the future.
ROFL...
(doto
(Thre
Ken Wesson writes:
> * How would you characterize your use of Clojure *today* -- you do
> know that HTML supports true italics, right? :)
Obviously *today* is meant to be rebound to a new value in the future.
-Phil
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "
Nice analysis. A few remarks:
* The results seem to confirm the arguments here that there's a
problem with documentation and with the lack of a good "starter kit".
Making the command line REPL better might help in that regard too (tab
completion would not even be too difficult, given Clojure's
int
quot;A few weeks ago, I opened the 2011 State of Clojure survey. As with last
> year’s survey, my aim was to take a snapshot of the Clojure community — our
> origins in aggregate, how and where we are using Clojure, and what needs to
> improve to help the community grow and prosper.&q
"A few weeks ago, I opened the 2011 State of Clojure survey. As with last
year’s survey, my aim was to take a snapshot of the Clojure community — our
origins in aggregate, how and where we are using Clojure, and what needs to
improve to help the community grow and prosper."
The resu
it
> all again this year!
>
> The 2011 State of Clojure survey opened yesterday, and will remain open until
> Monday, June 20th:
>
> http://cemerick.com/2011/06/15/the-2011-state-of-clojure-survey-is-open/
>
> If you haven't yet participated, please do so! "Tak
Last year's State of Clojure survey[1] was such a success and yielded such
valuable data about the Clojure community that I had no choice but to do it all
again this year!
The 2011 State of Clojure survey opened yesterday, and will remain open until
Monday, June 20th:
http://cemerick.com
41 matches
Mail list logo
