2010/9/10 Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de>:
> Hi,
>
> On 9 Sep., 20:46, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-googlegroups.
> 620...@mired.org> wrote:
>
>> The first problem with that is that this stuff seems show up
>> *everywhere* in Javaland. It's not just web apps, it's pretty much
>> anything.
>
> You just lost me completely with your argumentation. I wrote a small
> desktop utility (simple problem, simple solution, simple program)
> which is distributed to different locations in the company. It works
> on Windows and Unix w/o adaption to the system. Download jar and
> double-click / execute via java -jar. It works without library version
> hell, complicated Makefiles, system differences and other shenanigans.
> I'm quite willing to pay more complexity upfront to have it easier in
> the end.
>
> It is obvious that Clojure doesn't fit your needs. Then simply don't
> use it.
Meikel,
while I admit I haven't read *all* the answers to Meikel's question in
their entirety, what I've understood is that :
* he's not talking about clojure the language, but its ecosystem
(the JVM host and the J2EE stuff -de facto standard for webapps)
=> so I disagree with you, clojure *may* fit its needs
* AFAIK the state of the art for clojure hosted on the JVM is not
fixed, so I don't see why your advice to him is to not use it.
All,
Beware trying too hard to defend a position which is not defendable.
Lee said it with probably less "provocative" terms than Mike, but Mike
being a bit "provocative" doesn't mean Mike's point is wrong. And
Mike's examples being a bit (ok maybe a lot) "caricatural" (is this
the idiomatic english word for what I mean?) doesn't mean his point is
invalid.
These last few months, working on ccw has been particularly
interesting because I've had feedback from users, especially Lee. Lee
has challenged a lot of what I had considered to be "simple things" in
ccw. I can say that when you're in a position of "expert", it's hard
to change your mind, because at first, you reject the new user's
points as invalid.
I think that I finally got some points, and have implemented them in ccw.
I've learned something from this : the "It's harder to do/design
simple things than complex ones" maxim is soo true. But what I also
learned is that one point that makes it hard to follow the maxim is
when you consider that you've reached the nirvana of simplicity for
your system (either public interface or internals) and there's nothing
more to do.
Probably Apple with its iPhone is a popular example of great minds
having been able to be the first in the market to offer interfaces
simpler that what everybody else, used to "classic" user interface
ergonomics, would have imagined possible.
I guess a lot of people switch to clojure because they recognize in it
that the simpler paradigm to start with with your program (functional
programming), the better the program. By doing so they are recognizing
that Java is not a good example of "Simple things made simple".
And the same problem Java the language has, the same problem all its
ecosystem has (to some level, those are "gross" approximations, of
course).
What Matt told several posts above about conjure seem to be an
interesting step towards simplicity, without affecting incremental
addition of features/essential complexity to the growing program.
Peace my friends,
cheers,
--
Laurent
--
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
