Hi, just started looking at Clojure, and it looks promising as a modern- day Lisp for practical use.
I saw this presentation on Clojure: http://clojure.blip.tv/ and I wholeheartedly agree with the design principles. Unified access to all kinds of collections (list, array, struct, hash) is something I sorely missed in CL back in the day (late 90's), and I like the focus on practical programming in the modern world (multicore/multithread, leveraging existing libraries, a stable and mature VM plaform etc.). Looking forward to getting to know Clojure better. But I have a question: Why are there *four* ways to do an import, each with slightly different syntax and semantics? Re-quoting A. N. Whitehead ("civilizations advance by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking") and Occam's razor ("entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"), it just seems strange that after spending tons of effort on unifying collections the language would start heaping complexity upon the poor "import". So my question is: Are all these variants just temporary cruft that will be collapsed to a uniform way of doing it some time in the future? Or must we assume that they are here to stay? Apart from that, what I have seen of the language so far (admittedly only a couple of days) is impressive. Thanks! -- 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
