I remember a discussion about the Ant example in Lisp and Clojure,
the response for Rich shows some important point that establishes the
difference with a naive implementation of the Ant example.
I think you can add a link to the Ant example and the incorrect Lisp
implementation of it.
http:/
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> Wow! That's a lot of great research. I'm impressed.
Thanks!
> My only concern is that some of the internals *could* change over time
> (I see Rich's commit stream) and some indication in the doc
> identifying what's design level (wo
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Lau wrote:
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> Congratulations on a very good article - I helped me get a lot of
> facts straight.
Thanks!
> The final part of the article where you comment on the various
> functions like
> add-watcher etc, is not very insightful and the UML charts
Hey Mark,
Congratulations on a very good article - I helped me get a lot of
facts
straight.
The final part of the article where you comment on the various
functions like
add-watcher etc, is not very insightful and the UML charts didnt help
me all
that much. But with such a small amount of critis
Wow! That's a lot of great research. I'm impressed.
My only concern is that some of the internals *could* change over time
(I see Rich's commit stream) and some indication in the doc
identifying what's design level (won't change) vs. implementation
level (might change) would be useful.
On Sun,
I think we'd all agree that STM is a very important feature of
Clojure. I trust that it works as advertised, but until recently I
didn't feel that I understood exactly how it worked. This left me
unable to defend it when pressed by developers that aren't using
Clojure. I wanted to change that, for
