As an outcome of this thread, I have decided not to invest in clojure, so I believe the following to be purely feedback, as I have no agenda to push.
- it seems from some's point of view that I was "trolling". Fine, from my point of view though it was akin to "drink the kool aid or gtfo". Sorry, I'm too old and too well-read and too inquisitive to drink the kool aid, so I'll just gtfo. - I'm not sure what you mean by "not up to speed". I had the book about the google closure library for nearly a year now and I'd read it a few times. I'd gotten copies of all the clojure books published and downloaded all the videos put out and read/watched them several times. I'd scoured the web - and this group - for every clojure related reading material I could find, and watched the clojurescript video a couple of times very carefully and read its rationale a few times. - I'm not sure what you mean by "recovering old ground". When I made the post (24th of July) Clojurescript had only been out for a few days, most notably it was 2 days after "Video is now available of Rich Hickey's talk at ClojureNYC yesterday announcing clojurescript" (22nd of July). - I'd understand what you might've meant by the above two points if you guys had no intentions for anyone outside a very small tightknit group of you to use clojurescript, but if you'd intended others besides you to use it too then no, I don't. - I'm also not sure what you mean by "He did not understand the difference between language and platform, and from there was at a loss to understand our decision-making". I believe my original post and thereafter and throughout were clear enough that my concern was not the clojure language itself, but the google closure library as a dependency. - the argument - paraphrasing - "it's just clojure, you code in clojure, the google library is under, and you don't need to look under" is akin to saying "here's a foundation for you to build a skyscraper on, now build your skyscraper, don't look under at what's in the foundation you're building on". Sorry, can't do. - the notion that the leader decides all unquestioned and that no diappointment or unhappiness will be tolerated is too stalinist for my taste. It is my belief that the hallmark of good open source software is its attitude towards intense and thorough scrutiny. Regards and best wishes. On Jul 31, 3:27 pm, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > (I have take the liberty of changing the subject line, which may be less than > ideal for some people's reading style.) > -- 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
