Whereas when Steve Yegge writes: "which means that everyone (including > me!) who is porting Java code to Clojure (which, by golly, is a good > way to get a lot of people using Clojure) is stuck having to rework > the code semantically rather than just doing the simplest possible > straight port. The more they have to do this, the more you're going > to shake users off the tree." all I could think on reading this is > "horror, horror, oh God, horror!!!; he really doesn't get it". First, > he shouldn't be porting Java code to clojure,
Do you mean no one should port Java code to Clojure, or do you mean Steve Yegge in particular should not port Java code to Clojure? I can think of several good reasons why someone (including Steve Yegge) might choose to do that. Would you mind elaborating on that point? Regardless, after reading all of Steve Yegge's comments in that thread, I do not get the impression he is asking for anyone to throw the kitchen sink into Clojure. Rather, he is asking for the Clojure community to be more receptive toward feedback and questions. Yes, he says, being more receptive may lead to additions to Clojure, but it may just as well lead to answering questions in a constructive way. -- 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
