On Jul 24, 11:19 am, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed. >
I'll make sure you get a refund then. Seriously, this is like being disappointed an action movie was an action movie instead of a comedy. Your expectations are a complete mismatch for the intentions of ClojureScript. > First of all, congrats and good job to all involved in putting it out. > On the plus side, it's a good way to use the Google Closure javascript > platform. > > On the minus, imho, that's what's wrong with it. > > Google Closure is too Java. Actually, it's too JavaScript. Some JS proponents want to disavow its pseudo class model, but it certainly is part of the design of JavaScript. And it has some particular advantages over the other strategies, as outlined here: http://bolinfest.com/javascript/inheritance.php > It's not idiomatic JavaScript. There's no such thing as idiomatic JavaScript. There are a lot of different conventions used by different libraries. > I find it > disappointing that rather than porting from a functional language like > Clojure straight to another functional language like Javascript, the > google closure with its ugly Java-isms is right there obnoxiously in > the middle. > In the middle of what? I look at ClojureScript code and it looks like Clojure to me. Google Closure is under, and it is no more annoying there than Java is under Clojure - an implementation detail, and a rich source of production-quality code. > Then, there's the elephant in the room, and that elephant is Jquery. I > believe any targetting-javascript tool that misses out on jquery-first- > and-foremost is missing out on the realities of javascript in 2011. Should it be the purpose of a new language like ClojureScript to orient itself around the realities of currently popular JavaScript libraries? I think not. If you want jQuery as the center of your universe, JavasScript is your language - good luck with it. I see jQuery as a tool to be leveraged when appropriate (i.e. rarely in large programs), not an architectural centerpiece. > Jquery is huge in its community and plugins, and it has tons of books > and tutorials. So what? Those people are satisfied by, and not leaving, JavaScript, and I'm fine with that. > Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point. If you seriously cannot see the benefits of Google's compiler then you are not the target audience for ClojureScript. In any case, for those interested there is an argument for Google's approach in the rationale, as well as this page on the wiki: https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Google-Closure > I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps > so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority. > Is that a threat, or a promise? I suggest you start by writing up a rationale like this one: https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Rationale making your intentions and the superiority of your approach clear. Then prepare yourself for messages from people who don't bother to read or understand it. Messages like yours make creating things and releasing them for free a really exhausting endeavor. Good luck with your fork - please start a separate mailing list for discussions about it. Rich p.s. note to others - if you have read the docs and have honest questions about the approach, I and others would be happy to explain. But we could do without messages about disappointment, threats of forks etc. ClojureScript is an action movie, and we're interested in helping people kick butt. -- 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
