On Jul 24, 7:05 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > The Javascript notaries have advocated using a small functional subset > > of javascript, rather than the full gamut of javscript's quirks, and I > > was saddened while watching the Rich Hickey talk when he said that > > clojurescript would abstract away the complex conventions and > > discipline required when writing apps for gClosure by producing code > > ready for its optimizing compiler, when it could've simply enforced > > that small functional subset of javascript itself (sans gClosure) > > that's now considered idiomatic best practice. > > Restricting yourself to a functional subset of JavaScript can't fix > JavaScript. The functional subset stinks, Javascript notaries be damned. > > David
If so where does this leave clojure itself and its advocacy of functional programming, then; see last paragraph of my reply to Mark. -- 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
