On Friday, 11 January 2013 12:17:35 UTC-7, Herwig Hochleitner wrote: > > > There is, however, value in curated sets of independent libriaries that > work well together. Also in having declarative syntax available for common > tasks. > Still IMO, Clojure's web story is still somewhat lacking on those. More > specifically in in environment integration, since ring does a great job for > binding application components. > > I would have to agree with this, because it's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of in the original post. Eclipse is made up of a core application and a large set of plugins. While the individual plugin developers are free to develop as they see fit, they have all chosen to join together to produce at least one stable, consistent release per year where everything just works together nicely (well, OK, maybe not so nicely with Juno). I know the Clojure philosophy is, as Sean mentioned above, to build from small composable libraries, but to foster increased adoption in enterprise environments there's something to be said for a quick, easy start.
I think maybe a combination approach of curated library versions (that work well together) and a comprehensive set of templates would go a long way towards easing adoption. I get the feeling we're almost there with Leiningen templates and the more mature libraries (like Compojure/Ring), and it would just take some buy-in and coordinated effort making it happen. -- 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
