On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Jason Baker <amnorv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 2:24 am, Dan Fichter <daniel.fich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Clojure version is more concise and radically safer but a little more > > conceptually packed. Is it worth your trouble? > > Being primarily a Python programmer, I can say that the first thing my > co-workers would say is that Clojure isn't as readable as Python is. > > > Any language you are familiar and comfortable with is going to seem much more readable and much more intuitive than a language you are unfamiliar with. Even similarity to English presupposes a familiarity with and comfort with English- something most people on this planet don't have. A native English speaker would find a programming language whose syntax was based on, say, Mandarin or Swahili, very "unintuitive". The point here is that arguing in favor of a new language on the basis of intuitiveness and readability is a losing argument. Instead, I'd concentrate on the advantages Clojure has- things like incredibly good parallelism capabilities, tight integration with Java (for example, can you extend Lucene's HitCollector abstract base class to implement your own hit collector in Jython? This is an honest question- I really don't know), etc. Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
