On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Brian Hurt <bhur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > That may depend on the audience. If the audience is a bunch of Python programmers, similarities to Python may be quite relevant and not comprise a losing argument. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
