On Nov 19, 12:08 am, Matt Revelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > As the old chestnut goes, one never gets a second chance to make a
> > first impression. The first impression one gets now does *not* reflect
> > the quality of clojure at this point. The first impression one gets
> > now is "OK, broken, check back later." Clojure is more mature than
> > this, and the initial setup brokenness is easily solved by putting up
> > an archive of working versions of the various components even if they
> > grow to be many months old before they're refreshed. This would not
> > require an automated testing server, just a single tar command line
> > once or twice a year.
>
> Sure, you're absolutely correct that more effort could have been made
> to streamline Emacs/SLIME support for particular revisions of
> Clojure. But since Clojure is bleeding edge and Emacs/SLIME users are
> usually tinkerers there hasn't been enough of a demand to warrant the
> effort. I expect this will change as soon as 1.0 is released.
It is already the case that Clojure has releases. If the getting
started page that talks about setting up slime just points to a
version of slime/swank that works with the latest release version of
Clojure, the problems with version mismatches should be reduced.
-asbjxrn
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
