Wow, thank you everyone! Lots of great responses. I'm going to take some time to let it all sink in.
> I'd say "yes" if only for the experience of writing a "purely functional" > game (minus the I/O, of course). I wrote a Pong clone in a similar way, > though I don't share that author's dislike for passing the whole world to > each "mover" function. That lets you do neat things like: ... Yes, maybe you are right. You all may have gotten the impression that I think code size is the worst problem of all, but that is not true. And of course, one more argument is not a big deal. My greatest concern is that my code is more complex than it needs to be. I find myself thinking a lot about how the code I'm writing will affect other parts of the application, and how it all holds together. Functional programming is supposed to be the cure for that, so I thought that it might be a good idea to ask for advice. I regret now that I mentioned code size and verbosity so much, because that is not really something I should be thinking so much about. I just try to strive for brevity in other languages where functional programming is hardly possible. If you let my apparent preferences for succinct code and the familiarity of global state influence your advice, please let me know. -- 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
