Interesting discussion of this talk, including comments from Rich (or at least someone claiming to be Rich):
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lirke/simple_made_easy_by_rich_hickey_video/ On Oct 25, 7:00 am, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/10/25 Michael Jaaka <michael.ja...@googlemail.com>: > > > Something is simple as long as your mental model is simple to > > track. Something which doesn't cause you headache. > > Disagree. The whole point of Rich's talk is to have people not > conflate "simple" and "easy", or it seems to me that this is what > you're doing here. > "simple" is objective. You start talking about "your mental model is > simple to track" => you probably meant "easy to track". And anyway, > "your", "mental model" seems more like subjective material than > objective material. > > > > > > > > > If you can't build mental model in your head, then its definitely not > > simple. > > Every time you think I have mental model which works like this, but before > > this I must remember about this and that, > > or assume that there is something to add which behave like this, it is proof > > that it is doesn't solve problems in a simplest way. > > All design patterns are proof of that used tools are not simple and must be > > made simple by applying as simple as possible additional mental model. > > For example OO programming have a lot of design patterns. > > When design pattern becomes mental model which solve specific problem and is > > not addition > > to the goal but language feature then you can be sure that language is > > simple to such solve domain problems. > > Now looking at Clojure which claims to be general purpose language, the > > Clojure is simple since it: > > - allows you to turn design patterns into language features (as whole lisp) > > - is near to mathematical logic (lambda, definition of functions - functions > > without side effect with which you can reason about) > > - is practical since it is also about data manipulation (not a first time I > > have turned XML into s-expressions - interpretation, function definition, > > control flow you have out of box) > > There are some also drawbacks about Clojure: > > - there is no simple made currying so its not as near as for example Haskell > > to lambda calculus > > - you can't reason about data types until runtime and empirically tests > > - it is bound to JVM infrastructure (ClojureScript and CLR version want to > > change that) > > There is a lot other fields in which Clojure doesn't fit, so its not simple > > in: > > - real time systems (JVM is not real time cause of GC) > > - hardware programming on low level (assemblers or C are much more suitable) > > There is a lot other things to say about being simple but for now it should > > answer you question. > > > -- > > 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 -- 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
