So look, I think the actual CompSci guys (looking to teach) are asking for simplicity, and the Java guys are saying it's not that simple.
>From my perspective, I am steeped in Java, and I am looking for new tools for my toolbelt. I can work with Eclipse or NetBeans, and I can roll Clojure into existing programs where I need it. It rolls right into existing Maven and Ant. If you want to get the length of a String in Clojure, you have to read JavaDoc. There are plugins for all the major IDEs that, more or less, work well enough for beginners. One of the great strengths of Clojure, and what is going to make it hard for students who aren't already comfortable with Java, is that it not only integrates with Java, it depends on that integration. So you have to know a lot about Java just to get started. THEN you start adding in immutability, macros, concurrency, STM, etc. You may not have to cover the harder things right away, but you have to cover some of it, and this is in addition to the things that Clojure the language assumes you already know about Java. So I'll say it again, it's just not that simple. Unless you already know Java, and the only learning curve you face is the new features in Clojure. Then it's not bad. But it does give you new ways to cut your foot off more quickly. :-) On Jun 29, 8:24 pm, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:30 PM, cageface wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:22 pm, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > >> Any talk about how Clojure might be "too much" for some, for whatever > >> reason, is out of bounds IMO. Clojure, as a language, is *simpler* > >> than just about all of the popular alternatives out there, and the > >> language is eminently approachable and practical for programmers from > >> varying domains and with varying levels of experience. > > > It just isn't. Recursion, s-expr syntax, non-mutability, macros and > > the difference between compilation and evaluation etc etc are just > > *harder* for most people to understand than simple infix imperative > > code. Even MIT has thrown in the towel in this battle and switched to > > Python for the SICP courses. I remember having discussions with Peter > > Siebel about this while he was working on his Lisp book. Like a lot of > > Lisp lovers, he seemed to think that making Lisp popular was just a > > matter of making people see how eminently logical and simple and > > practical it is. It's not that easy. > > More talking up the complexity of Clojure, to its detriment. Stop > it. Familiarity is not a metric that anyone is aiming at, least of > all the language principals -- capability in various axes is, and > that's what's attracting people from all sides. > > FWIW, I was in the room at the 2009 ILC when Prof. Sussman addressed > the scheme -> python switch, and I spoke with him afterwards about it > as well: > > http://muckandbrass.com/web/x/zAAq > > The switch had nothing to do with language complexity. This is all > totally besides the point. > > > Look at the results of your own usage poll. The top languages people > > would use if Clojure were unavailable to them are: > > 1. scala > > 2. common lisp > > 3. haskell > > 4. scheme > > > These people just *aren't* the median. To insist otherwise is to live > > in denial. > > Of course, participants in that survey were self-selected, and you > fail to mention that the majority of respondents had "come from" Java > (by a factor of 2 over the next most common response). This is backed > up by my experience in talking with Clojure programmers more broadly, > including scads of people from "enterprisey" Java environments that > are looking at a lisp for the first time as providing a compelling > solutions to some of their problems. > > Are they the "elite" of the Java universe, simply because they came to > Clojure? No, they're just early adopters, using a patchwork of > technologies to get their job done, and Clojure happens to hit a sweet > spot for them. To insist otherwise is to aggrandize those that are > "in the club" at the detriment of all those that might come to join us > out of reasonable self-interest. > > - Chas -- 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
