On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:28:03 PM UTC+1, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
If you wanted to create a collection of idiomatic Clojure programs for
> solving a particular set of problems, e.g. the Benchmarks Game problems, as
> soon as more than one person submitted a program and/or reviewed a program,
> there could arise arguments over which ones are idiomatic and which are not.
>
> If one person is maintaining the collection, they can make judgement calls
> on this, and/or keep multiple different submissions around to solve the
> same problem as all equally idiomatic, even though they use different code
> constructs to do it.
>
There is much truth in this; however, I bet that all those programs could
in fact be considered idomatic from a wider perspective. One guy prefers *
(reduce...assoc)* where another prefers *(into {}...map...)* and that's OK.
However, if someone comes along with *(let [m (HashMap.)] (loop []...(recur
(.put m ...)))* claiming that is in fact idomatic, he's just being
unreasonable---by everyone's agreement. Yes, in the final analysis there
will always be a fine dividing line over which everyone involved will love
to disagree, but that's a lesser concern.
-Marko
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
