On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:06 PM, David Jacobs wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions. I should say that I was only giving you my > impression of using Clojure re: it's version number. I'm not saying any of > the things I listed are not doable, just that they feel very ad-hoc and not > quite ready for a "2.0".
I agree. My gut tells me "2.0" implies promises about the ecosystem and ease-of-adoption. Clojure 2.0 would be overpromising. Better to underpromise and overdeliver, as they say. ----- Brian Marick, Artisanal Labrador Contract programming in Ruby and Clojure Author of /Ring/ (forthcoming; sample: http://exampler.com/tmp/ring.pdf) www.exampler.com, www.exampler.com/blog, www.twitter.com/marick -- 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
