Alex, though I mostly support you and value "understand efficiency from first look" a lot, I'd speak about this:
> There is no Clojure operation for "add something to the right side of a list" - instead there is the far simpler (in simple vs easy terms) "add something to a collection" I think "right side" this is not what people are constantly looking, collections are here to be mapped/iterated, so the real question is - "how to add to collection in order to be processed after all" (aka "right") or "before all" (aka "left") and more argue about seqs_vs_colls faq entry inside, or even forget about queues as an alternative. Maybe add some words about iteration to that faq? wdyt about this? Besides, I see you linked faq twice already, what do you think about a quote from http://ashtonkemerling.com/blog/2016/06/11/my-increasing-frustration-with-clojure/ > if enough people have the same issue, it’s the codes fault and a FAQ entry is not good enough On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 12:35:12 AM UTC+7, Alex Miller wrote: > > You can talk about Clojure operations from a type perspective, but I think > when you do so, you are largely missing the point of Clojure. > > There is no Clojure operation for "add something to the right side of a > list" - instead there is the far simpler (in simple vs easy terms) "add > something to a collection". Understanding the difference and why it's > important are far more illuminating than just forcing your prior model > (like tupelo's prepend/append). If your goal is education, then it's doubly > important to take this journey. It may be a few stops longer, but you'll > actually learn a lot more and create a mental model that will help you > understand more of Clojure's philosophy. > > > On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-5, Gary Trakhman wrote: >> >> I'm just referring to a language design tradeoff, specifically clojure >> picks ad-hoc polymorphism over making it easy to reason about types. >> Subtyping, polymorphism, and the ability to do efficient type inference >> (auto and human) are a real debate outside of clojure. >> >> People wanting more specific functions are looking for it to be easier to >> know the type of something. >> >> Clojure and other dynamic languages tend to convert stuff for you all the >> time implicitly, which you get used to eventually, but the OP was talking >> about using this for education, and I think no one wants to learn about >> computational complexity before they can add something to the right side of >> a list. >> > -- 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.
