On Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:30:51 PM UTC-5, stuart....@gmail.com wrote: > > Modularity helps, not hurts, in achieving this. >
I can see that now. Thanks to everyone who provided clarifications about the new contrib organization! > Contrarily, it seems that effort is being put into cleaning up the core and > jettisoning anything merely suspected of being superfluous. > > That certainly isn't an objective. Can you list some examples of things > that in your opinion were casually jettisoned? > I didn't use the word "casually." But, to the point, see the discussion here, re defn-: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/discussion > Libraries are a different story. Contrib in particular has a mixed record. > We are changing that now. Help welcomed. > I'll repeat that I'd prefer not to think of it is as "contrib," as if it's something provided by the community ("help welcomed/wanted"), but as a standard library very close to the language itself. In my opinion, this would strengthen Clojure and its acceptance. The language core might be mature, but any language needs a mature standard library. I can think of a few non-exciting languages (Java!) that were broadly adopted because the standard library -- together with the rest of the platform -- was strong, mature, and proven. -- 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
