So I've read the previous post > Rich Hickey: "Simple Made Easy" from Strange Loop 2011, but I wanted to ask some simple questions not complected by the interweaving path the other has post followed (is 'complected' even a word? - lol) .
I know the presentation was, while inclusive of Clojure, not specific to Clojure and after having given some further thought I find myself wondering where does Clojure sit in this continuum of simple to complectness (ok, yes I am now making up words). And I wonder where do the language designers think Clojure sits? How far along has Clojure gone down this rabbit hole? Is Rich planning to make a new language, because Clojure is 'here', but not 'there' ? - and where is 'here' for Clojure anyway? If your were to rank, in accordance to Rich's inventory of complect items, is Clojure a 5/10? or a 9/10? Do the Clojure language designers plan to make changes to Clojure to make it simpler? And if so, how so? I don't want this to be a battle on Clojure doing 'this' but not 'that' (and I hope that's possible). Tim -- 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
